This electronic theses or dissertation has been
downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/
Winning the peace: the British in occupied Germany, 1945-1948.
Knowles, Christopher
Awarding institution:
King's College London
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from
it may be published without proper acknowledgement.
END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported
License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
You are free to:
 Share: to copy, distribute and transmit the work
Under the following conditions:
 Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in any
way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
 Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
 No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings and
other rights are in no way affected by the above.
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact librarypure@kcl.ac.uk providing
details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Download date: 01. Oct. 2016
This electronic thesis or dissertation has been
downloaded from the King’s Research Portal at
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/
Title: Winning the peace: the British in occupied Germany, 1945-1948.
Author: Christopher Knowles
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or
information derived from it may be published without proper acknowledgement.
END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0
Unported License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
You are free to:
Share: to copy, distribute and transmit the work
Under the following conditions:
Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author (but not in
any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
Non Commercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
No Derivative Works - You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
Any of these conditions can be waived if you receive permission from the author. Your fair dealings
and other rights are in no way affected by the above.
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact librarypure@kcl.ac.uk
providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
WINNING THE PEACE:
THE BRITISH IN OCCUPIED GERMANY, 1945-1948
Christopher Knowles
A thesis submitted to the Department of History, Kings College,
London, for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, February 2014
1
Abstract
This thesis examines the contribution made by twelve important and influential individuals to
the development of a policy of physical and economic reconstruction, political renewal and
personal reconciliation in the British Zone of occupied Germany in the first three years after
the end of the Second World War. The selected individuals all possessed power, authority
and influence, at different levels of the hierarchy, and collectively represent the view of the
‘governing elite’ of the occupation, including some of its internal differences. They have
been categorised in three groups of four: those at the top of the hierarchy, the three Military
Governors and one of their senior generals; four senior civilian diplomats and administrators
responsible for promoting democracy in Germany; and four young officers with no adult
experience but war, who held responsible and influential positions despite their youth.
A biographical approach is a novel methodology for studying the British occupation of
Germany. It highlights the diversity of aims and personal backgrounds and in so doing can
explain some of the apparent contradictions in occupation policy. Personal influences were
especially important in a period of transition from war to peace, when official policy
guidelines appeared unclear or inappropriate and organisational structures created for the
occupation were short-lived and changed rapidly.
A wide range of sources has been used including memoirs and autobiographies, official
documents, personal papers and oral history interviews. Although sources were created at
different times for different purposes, most accounts were found to be remarkably consistent,
both internally and with each other. Subjective accounts have been placed in their historical
context in order to understand individuals’ perceptions, motivations and personal interests,
together with the limitations and constraints on their scope for action.
2
Acknowledgements
Many people, too numerous to mention all by name, have helped me at various stages of my
research. I would like to thank my fellow students at the Institute of Contemporary British
History at Kings College London, especially Kath Sherit who organised our student reading
group, and Mary Salinsky who read and commented on my draft thesis. I would like to thank
the late Sir Michael Palliser and Jan Thexton for agreeing to be interviewed, and Michael
Howard for giving me a signed copy of his memoir Otherwise Occupied and answering
various questions. Renate Greenshields shared her memories of what it was like to be one
of the first German war brides in Britain and introduced me to the family of Vaughan Berry.
Professor George Bain kindly gave me his permission to research the papers of Allan
Flanders at the Modern Records Centre. Sisters, sons, daughters, nephews and nieces of
other individuals I have researched have been generous in providing family memories,
including Martin and Mike Albu, Nick Chaloner, Leila Ingrams, Joan Woodward and Kate
Owen, who lent me copies of personal letters from her uncle, Vaughan Berry. Librarians and
archivists who have been especially helpful include Sarah Paterson at the Imperial War
Museum, Andrew Riley at Churchill Archives Centre and Heinz Egleder at Der Spiegel. I owe
a great debt of gratitude to my supervisors Professors Pat Thane and Bernd Weisbrod, who
have encouraged me to think carefully about all aspects of my research. Lastly without the
help and support of my wife, Mary Anne and children, Emily and Jack, I could never have
started on the six year project of a part-time PhD or completed the thesis.
3
Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 3
Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 4
List of illustrations .................................................................................................................................... 8
The twelve principal individuals discussed in the thesis ......................................................................... 9
1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 10
1.1 Research questions, scope and purpose of the thesis .............................................................. 10
1.2 Methodology: A biographical approach ..................................................................................... 13
Advantages and disadvantages of a biographical approach ......................................................... 14
Selection criteria and categorisation .............................................................................................. 16
Exclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Time period .................................................................................................................................... 21
How the thesis is organised ........................................................................................................... 22
1.3 Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 22
1.4 Historiography ............................................................................................................................ 26
PART I
PHYSICAL RECONSTRUCTION:
THE MILITARY GOVERNORS AND ARMY GENERALS ................................................................... 33
2
Bernard Montgomery, Brian Robertson and Alec Bishop: Creating order out of
chaos and ‘rebuilding civilisation’: May 1945 – April 1946............................................................. 34
2.1 Classically educated soldiers in the service of the British Empire .............................................. 37
Field-Marshal Bernard Montgomery .............................................................................................. 37
Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Robertson ....................................................................................... 40
Major-General Sir Alec Bishop ...................................................................................................... 44
2.2 ‘Almost overnight’: The transition from war to peace ................................................................ 46
‘You have to see it to believe it’ ..................................................................................................... 48
‘First things first’ ............................................................................................................................. 51
Food: ‘A Buchenwald in Germany’ ................................................................................................ 53
‘Epidemics need no Passports’ – disease and communism ......................................................... 56
The creation of a new directive on Military Government ............................................................... 60
2.3 Missionary idealism: the occupation as a moral crusade .......................................................... 62
Memories of the First World War ................................................................................................... 63
Echoes of Empire........................................................................................................................... 66
‘Saving the soul of Germany’ ......................................................................................................... 69
2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 72
4
3
Sholto Douglas: ‘The unhappiest period in my entire official life’: May 1946 –
November 1947 .................................................................................................................................... 75
3.1 ‘A professional airman’ .............................................................................................................. 77
3.2 Conflicting aims ......................................................................................................................... 81
3.3 Concerns over the death penalty .............................................................................................. 84
3.4 Criticism at home and allegations of corruption ........................................................................ 88
3.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 97
PART II
POLITICAL RENEWAL:
FOUR CIVILIAN DIPLOMATS AND ADMINISTRATORS ................................................................. 100
4
Harold Ingrams: ‘Trying to beat the swastika into the parish pump’: July 1945 –
August 1946 ....................................................................................................................................... 101
4.1 Harold Ingrams: colonial administrator .................................................................................... 103
4.2 Echoes of empire and ‘missionary idealism’ ........................................................................... 105
4.3 First steps towards political renewal ........................................................................................ 111
4.4 Electoral Reform: the attempt to impose the British ‘majority’ system .................................... 115
4.5 Civil service reform: the proposed abolition of the Bürgermeister........................................... 119
4.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 123
5
Austen Albu and Allan Flanders: International socialist visions of political
renewal: February 1946 - December 1947 ...................................................................................... 127
5.1 Personal background, political activities and links with German socialists ............................. 129
Austen Albu and Neu Beginnen................................................................................................... 129
Allan Flanders and the Internationaler Sozialisticher Kampfbund (ISK)...................................... 133
5.2 Democratic socialist visions for post-war Germany ................................................................ 137
The Socialist Clarity Group .......................................................................................................... 137
The ISK, the Socialist Vanguard Group and Socialist Commentary ........................................... 140
5.3 Promoting political renewal and a positive socialist policy ...................................................... 142
Relations with colleagues ............................................................................................................ 144
The Fusion Campaign in Berlin ................................................................................................... 146
Ordinance no. 57: The devolution of power to the German Länder ............................................ 150
Disengagement from Germany and return to Britain ................................................................... 156
5.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 159
6
Henry Vaughan Berry: civilian regional commissioner for Hamburg: May 1946 –
May 1949 ............................................................................................................................................ 163
6.1 A meritocratic socialist who served in the Rhineland occupation............................................ 165
6.2 Active cooperation, shared ideals and aims ............................................................................ 170
6.3 The ‘Hamburg Project’: from defusing conflict to promoting a common interest ...................... 173
6.4 Personal reconciliation through Anglo-German discussion groups......................................... 179
6.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 184
5
PART III
PERSONAL RECONCILIATION:
FOUR YOUNG OFFICERS WITH NO ADULT EXPERIENCE BUT WAR ........................................ 188
7
John Chaloner, Michael Howard, Michael Palliser and Jan Thexton: Changing
aims and personal relationships: May 1945 – May 1948 ............................................................... 189
7.1 Personal backgrounds and positions in Germany................................................................... 192
John Chaloner .............................................................................................................................. 192
Michael Howard ........................................................................................................................... 194
Michael Palliser ............................................................................................................................ 196
Jan Thexton ................................................................................................................................. 198
7.2 Personal fulfilment rather than collective goals ....................................................................... 199
A younger generation? ................................................................................................................ 201
Reactions to death and destruction ............................................................................................. 203
War crimes and Holocaust survivors ........................................................................................... 205
7.3 Two individuals, out of step with official policy ........................................................................ 210
Michael Howard: The story of T-Force ........................................................................................ 211
John Chaloner: The English army officer who created Der Spiegel ............................................ 215
7.4 Getting to know the Germans .................................................................................................. 221
Singular or plural? ........................................................................................................................ 223
Friends and lovers ....................................................................................................................... 226
Husbands and wives .................................................................................................................... 230
7.5 People like us? ........................................................................................................................ 234
Russian soldiers........................................................................................................................... 235
Displaced Persons ....................................................................................................................... 237
7.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 241
8
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 246
Diversity……………… ................................................................................................................. 246
Partial truths ................................................................................................................................. 250
Common assumptions ................................................................................................................. 253
Aims and intentions and how these changed over time .............................................................. 253
Appendix A: Note on Sources ......................................................................................................... 258
Personal memoirs and autobiographies ...................................................................................... 258
Official documents ....................................................................................................................... 259
Personal papers ........................................................................................................................... 259
Oral History .................................................................................................................................. 260
The Imperial War Museum Sound Archive .................................................................................. 261
Other sources .............................................................................................................................. 264
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................ 265
Analysis of IWM Sound Archive interviewees ..................................................................................... 265
6
Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................... 269
1 The National Archives (TNA) ...................................................................................................... 269
2 Personal papers ......................................................................................................................... 271
Bath Record Office (BRO) ........................................................................................................... 271
Churchill College Archives (CAC) ................................................................................................ 271
Modern Records Centre, Warwick University (MRC) .................................................................. 271
Imperial War Museum documents collection (IWM) .................................................................... 271
Somerset Heritage Centre (SHC) ................................................................................................ 271
3 Oral history interviews ................................................................................................................ 272
4 Other primary sources ................................................................................................................ 272
Published collections of documents............................................................................................. 272
Der Spiegel Archive (DSA) .......................................................................................................... 272
Hansard………….. ....................................................................................................................... 273
5 Contemporary accounts, memoirs and autobiographies ............................................................ 273
6 Literary works and fiction ............................................................................................................ 276
7 Web resources ........................................................................................................................... 276
8 Dictionary of National Biography ................................................................................................ 276
9 Newspapers and magazines ...................................................................................................... 278
10 Secondary sources ................................................................................................................... 279
Books and articles........................................................................................................................ 279
Unpublished theses ..................................................................................................................... 288
7
List of illustrations
Field-Marshal Bernard Montgomery ……………………………….…………………….37
General Brian Robertson ………………………………………………………………….40
Major-General Alec Bishop ……………………………………………………………….44
Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sholto Douglas ………………………………………..75
Harold Ingrams ……………………………………………………………………………101
Austen Albu ……………………………………………………………………………….129
Allan Flanders …………………………………………………………………………….133
Vaughan Berry ……………………………………………………………………………163
John Chaloner …………………………………………………………………………….192
Michael Howard …………………………………………………………………………..194
Michael Palliser …………………………………………………………………….……..196
8
The twelve principal individuals discussed in the thesis
Field-Marshal Bernard Montgomery, 1887-1976
Military Governor and Commander-in-Chief, 22 May 1945 – 1 May 1946
General Brian Robertson, 1896-1974
Deputy Military Governor and Chief of Staff to Montgomery, July 1945 – May 1946
Deputy Military Governor to Sholto Douglas, May 1946 – November 1947
Military Governor and Commander-in-Chief, November 1947 – September 1949
High Commissioner to the Federal Republic of Germany, September 1949 – June 1950
Major-General Alec Bishop, 1897-1984
Head of PR/ISC (Public Relations and Information Services Control), June 1945 – June 1946
Deputy Chief of Staff to Brian Robertson, June 1946 – 1948
Regional Commissioner for North Rhine-Westphalia, 1948 – December 1950
Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sholto Douglas, 1893-1969
Commander-in-Chief, BAFO (British Air Forces of Occupation), August 1945 – January 1946
Military Governor and Commander-in-Chief, May 1946 – November 1947
Harold Ingrams, 1897-1973
Head of ALG (Administration and Local Government) branch, July 1945 – August 1946
Austen Albu, 1903-1994
Head of German Political Department, Political Division, February 1946 – May 1946
Deputy Chairman, Governmental Sub-Commission, May 1946 – November 1947
Allan Flanders, 1910-1973
Head of German Political Department, Political Division, May 1946 – December 1947
Vaughan Berry, 1891-1979
Regional Commissioner for Westphalia, May 1946 – October 1946
Regional Commissioner for Hamburg, October 1946 – May 1949
British representative, International Authority of the Ruhr, June 1949 – September 1950
John Chaloner, 1924-2007
Officer, Westminster Dragoons, British army of occupation, May 1945 – July 1945
Press Officer, Information Control, Lüneburg, Osnabrück, Hanover, July 1945 – early 1947
Michael Howard, 1926Newly commissioned officer, Rifle Brigade, February 1946 – April 1946
Intelligence Officer, T-Force, April 1946 – December 1947
Michael Palliser, 1922-2012
Officer, Coldstream Guards, British army of occupation, May 1945 – January 1947
Jan Thexton, 1920-2008
NCO, Middlesex Yeomanry (signals), British army of occupation, May 1945 – May 1946
Control Commission Reparations Branch, Mandatory Requirements Office, Liaison officer at
the British Embassy, 1946 – 1966
9
1
Introduction
‘The only really worthwhile thing he ever did in his life’
1.1
1
Research questions, scope and purpose of the thesis
In a personal message to his troops issued on VE Day, 8 May 1945, Field-Marshal
2
Montgomery wrote ‘We have won the German war. Let us now win the peace.’ This
3
message was repeated many times in the months that followed, but what he meant by
‘winning the peace’ was never entirely clear. British policy in occupied Germany after the
Second World War is full of apparent contradictions. Despite extensive planning undertaken
before the end of the war, much of the work of the occupation authorities was characterised
by hasty improvisation. Economically, a policy of restricting industrial growth was pursued in
parallel with one of rebuilding the physical infrastructure and promoting economic
reconstruction. Though convinced of the superiority of the British way of life, the occupiers
were reluctant to impose a British model of democracy by dictatorial means, preferring to
allow the Germans to devise their own solutions to constitutional reform. ‘Parallel worlds’, in
which occupiers and occupied could live separate lives without meeting each other,
coexisted with extensive cooperation at work, numerous individual encounters through social
and cultural activities, and personal relationships that in some cases resulted in lifelong
friendships and marriage. Whether examining the economic, political, social or cultural
aspects of the occupation, these contradictions make it difficult to identify any logical,
coherent and distinctive ‘British’ policy in occupied Germany.
A general uncertainty concerning British policy towards Germany and the German people
was to be expected in the transition from war to peace, as the primary task of the Allied
armies changed from achieving victory in battle to the civilian administration of a defeated
enemy. Politicians in London had other priorities, not least the dissolution of the wartime
1
Brigadier Donnison, the author of the relevant volume of the British official history of the Second World War, Civil
Affairs and Military Government, North-West Europe, 1944-46, (London: HMSO, 1961), ended the book with a
‘personal impression’. Although regular officers at first disliked a posting to ‘Civil Affairs’, many of those he met in
the course of his work told him that by the time they left ‘they had come to feel it was the most rewarding work they
had ever undertaken.’ One even said it was ‘the only really worth while thing he ever did in his life.’
2
Bernard Montgomery, The Memoirs of Field-Marshal The Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, K.G. (London: Collins,
1958), p341
3
E.g. British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.6, 8 Dec. 1945, p2; Vol.1 No.18, 25 May 1946, p3
10
coalition and the general election. The new Labour government, when it assumed office in
August 1945, had an ambitious programme of domestic reform and little time or inclination to
issue new guidance or instructions to the authorities in Germany. Policy directives prepared
earlier had assumed that a central German government would remain in place and did not
provide for unexpected circumstances, such the scale of destruction in the cities, acute
shortages of food and raw materials, and the influx of millions of refugees expelled from the
former German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line. Those responsible for Military
Government, at all levels, had to use their own initiative to decide what course of action to
take in unfamiliar circumstances.
Despite these uncertainties, the overall course of the occupation in the British Zone from the
end of the war in Europe in May 1945 to the formation of an independent West German
government in September 1949 was fairly straightforward. The largely negative policies
agreed by the three wartime allies, Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union, at the
Potsdam conference in July and August 1945, were replaced by more positive policies
culminating in the European Recovery Programme, the transfer of power to elected German
authorities, and numerous social and cultural exchange programmes. The negative policies
are often summarised as the ‘Four Ds’ of the Potsdam Agreement, though different
historians have used more than four words starting with the letter ‘D’ to describe these,
referring variously to: Disarmament, Demilitarisation, Denazification, Decentralisation,
4
Decartelisation, Deindustrialisation, Dismantling and Democratisation. Historians have not
given the same shorthand description to the positive aspects of British (or US) occupation
policy, but these could be similarly characterised as the ‘Three Rs’ of physical and economic
Reconstruction, political Renewal and personal Reconciliation, relating to the economic,
political, and social and cultural aspects of occupation policy respectively.
5
The ‘Four Ds’ were clearly intended to avoid a repetition of the policy of appeasement in the
1920s and 1930s, which had so obviously failed to prevent another war. Complete
disarmament and demilitarisation were considered essential to destroy the power of the
German army and officer class. Denazification was designed to remove former Nazi Party
4
http://howitreallywas.typepad.com/how_it_really_was/2009/11/the-4-ds-of-the-potsdam-agreement-1945.html,
viewed 28 Nov. 2012
5
Re-education might be considered as a fourth ‘R’, but this was a contested term and an aspiration rather than a
policy.
11
members from positions of influence and responsibility. Decentralisation and decartelization
were intended to reduce the excessive power of the state and large industrial combines.
Deindustrialisation and dismantling of heavy industry were aimed at reducing Germany’s
economic capacity and ability to produce war plant and equipment and also to enable
reparations to be paid, in the form of surplus capital equipment, to the victorious Allies and
liberated countries. Democratisation cannot be described as negative, but was presented in
the agreement in very general terms, as a long term goal to ‘prepare for the eventual
reconstruction of German political life on a democratic basis’ and for the ‘eventual peaceful
6
cooperation in international life by Germany.’ There was no disagreement in principle
among the Allies on these policies, although there were disputes about the detail, such as
the mechanism for the payment of reparations, and significant differences soon emerged
over how they were implemented.
The reasons for adopting the more positive policies of the ‘Three Rs’, Reconstruction,
Renewal and Reconciliation, are more difficult to understand and explain. The Allies
operated relatively autonomously and applied different internal policies in their zones at
different times, which means that each needs to be considered separately. There was little
formal cooperation before the second half of 1946, when the British and Americans agreed
to unify their zones economically with effect from 1 January 1947, to form the ‘Bizone.’
Discussions at the Allied Control Council in Berlin exposed disagreements rather than, as
originally intended, coordinating the implementation of generally agreed policies.
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the contribution made by twelve important and
influential British people ‘on the ground’ in occupied Germany to the development and
implementation of a policy of Reconstruction, Renewal and Reconciliation in the British Zone
of occupied Germany. It seeks to discover what these individuals aimed to achieve, and why,
and how their aims changed over time. Through focussing on the motivation and intentions
of individuals, it can contribute to a fuller historical understanding of British policy and actions
during a period of transition; from war to peace, from conflict to co-operation. One of the
main claims made is that, in the British Zone, the positive policy of the ‘Three Rs’ started to
6
Beate Ruhm von Oppen (ed), Documents on Germany under Occupation 1945-1954 (London, New York, Toronto:
Oxford University Press, 1955), p42, p43. Also available online: Protocol of the Proceedings of the Berlin (Potsdam)
Conference 1 Aug. 1945, Section III, clauses 4a and 4b.
[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/truman/psources/ps_potsdam.html accessed 17 May 2010]
12
be applied very soon after the start of the occupation in the summer of 1945, under the
direction of the Military Governor, Field Marshal Montgomery, with the active support of his
senior generals. These more positive policies did not replace the ‘Four D’s’ but were
implemented in parallel and over time superseded them, as the negative policies were
considered to have been substantially achieved.
This thesis is not intended to be a history of the occupation. Some significant aspects have
been covered briefly or not at all. However, in examining the aims and intentions of
individuals, it can address questions of motivation and agency and explain the reasons for
some of the apparent contradictions in British policy. It can help answer questions such as
how and why British attitudes changed in the transition from war to peace, and why, despite
knowing of the crimes and atrocities committed by Germans during the war, many British
officers and civilian administrators devoted so much time and energy to the reconstruction of
their former enemy. In so doing, it is hoped it can contribute to a re-evaluation of the British
contribution to post-war Germany, at a critical time in the first three years after the war.
1.2
Methodology: A biographical approach
The research methodology adopted for this study was to follow twelve individuals through
the archives, to gather as much information as possible on each from a variety of sources,
while maintaining the professional discipline of cross-checking for accuracy and assessing
evidence for internal and external consistency.
7
A biographical approach to the subject is novel. Collective biography has not been used
8
previously as an historical method for studying the British occupation of Germany, though it
has a long tradition in other areas, from classical and medieval collections of ‘lives’ to
9
feminist and social historians researching those ‘marginal to the historical mainstream’, and
biographical methods have been used in three recent historical studies of personal
7
My use of the term ‘collective biography’ follows that of Krista Cowman, ‘Collective Biography’ in Simon Gunn and
Lucy Faire (eds.), Research Methods for History (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012), pp83-100.
Cowman used the term to describe historical works which set the ‘lived experiences’ of two or more individuals
within their historical context, rather than ‘prosopography’, large scale statistical surveys of defined groups of
people, as used in the social sciences.
8
With the possible exception of an unpublished PhD thesis by Barbara Schwepcke, The British High
Commissioners in Germany: some aspects of their role in Anglo-German relations, 1949-55 (PhD Diss: London,
1991). This was a political history rather than a collective biography and covered a later period.
9
Cowman, ‘Collective Biography’
13
experiences of war, conflict and violence before, during and after the Second World War.
10
In
adopting a biographical approach, I have tried to follow principles outlined in two theoretical
studies by Krista Cowman and Simone Lässig,
11
and strike a balance between exploring the
subjective experiences of individuals and the collective generalisation, analysis and historical
judgement required to make sense of a mass of data from diverse sources.
Cowman emphasised the importance of placing subjective material in its social and political
context. She argued that collective biography was a valuable historical method in its own
right, that retained a focus on the individual, while locating this within collective experiences
and the historical context,
12
quoting Ian Kershaw that individual actions ‘can only be
understood within the framework of the structures which conditioned them.’
13
According to
Lässig, social historians in the 1970s, especially in Germany, attempted to create a theorydriven historical science and biography was seen as ‘an antiquated and unreflective
approach to history.’
14
Reacting against this trend, others argued that the weakness of a
history concerned with structures, long term processes and mass phenomena was that ‘a
science of human societies will entirely lose sight of the human beings’,
need ‘to bring the actors back on stage.’
16
15
and there was a
A biographical approach, she concluded, should
not be concerned with either structure or agency, but with both.
Advantages and disadvantages of a biographical approach
A collective biography offers distinct advantages for a subject, such as this thesis, that
crosses the boundaries of national, political, social and cultural histories. It enables the
subjective experiences of some of the leading British members of the occupation to be given
due prominence, rather than subsumed within references to the policy and motivation of the
‘Anglo-Americans’ or ‘Western Allies’. The reasons why the selected individuals acted the
way they did and the influences upon them can be tracked in considerable detail, thereby
10
Mary Fulbrook, Dissonant Lives: Generations and violence through the German dictatorships (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011); Hester Vaizey, Surviving Hitler’s War: Family Life in Germany, 1939-48 (Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2010); Charles Glass, Deserter: The last untold story of the Second World War (London:
Harper Press, 2013)
11
Cowman, ‘Collective Biography’; Simone Lässig, ‘Introduction: Biography in Modern History – Modern History in
Biography’ in Volker R. Berghahn and Simone Lässig (eds.), Biography between Structure and Agency: Central
European Lives in International Historiography (New York & Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2008), pp1-26
12
Cowman, ‘Collective Biography’, pp84-5
13
Ibid, p96
14
Lässig, ‘Biography in Modern History’, p2
15
Ibid
16
Ibid, p3, citing David Kaiser, ‘Bringing the Human Actors back on Stage: The Personal Context of the EinsteinBohr Debate’, British Journal for the History of Science, 27, (1994), pp129-152
14
avoiding over-simplistic generalisations that fail to account for the complexity of British policy
or fully explain the motivation of those responsible.
As an historical method, a collective biography has particular advantages for studying a time
of transition, when a group of people were given a task, that of governing a country in
peacetime, entirely different from the work they had been trained to perform during the war.
It enables us to examine how their previous experience of, for example, the occupation of
the Rhineland after the First World War or the administration of the British Empire, influenced
their later actions. I have termed these personal influences the ‘mental baggage’ they
brought with them, by which I mean their family background, education, social status,
previous experience at work, networks of friends and colleagues, religious, political and
moral beliefs. These personal factors were especially important at times when official policy
guidelines appeared unclear or inappropriate for the circumstances they found on the
ground, but do not emerge easily from studies based on official documents or from statistical
surveys.
As with all historical methods, there are disadvantages to a biographical approach. It
emphasises the interconnectivity of personal lives and public responsibilities but can make it
difficult to examine any one subject or theme comprehensively over an extended period. A
focus on the aims and intentions of a selected group of British people tends to underestimate
the importance of the German responses, how policies were played out in practice and the
eventual outcomes. Information on these matters had to be obtained from secondary
sources and additional primary research. Furthermore, because much of the source material
was subjective and some created with hindsight, evidence collected for the study had to be
carefully validated. Where this could not be done, conclusions have been expressed with
due caution. Despite these disadvantages, biographical methods, modified to place the
subjects firmly within their historical context, seemed appropriate for a study of a relatively
short period when policies and attitudes changed rapidly, and preferable to a structural,
thematic or chronological approach, due to the temporary nature of the occupation and the
fragmentary state of much of the evidence.
15
Selection criteria and categorisation
The individuals considered in this study were chosen because they possessed authority,
power and influence at different levels in the hierarchy and reflected some of the diversity of
background and opinion among British people in occupied Germany. They therefore
collectively represent, as far as possible given constraints of time and space, the view of the
‘governing elite’ of the occupation, including some of its internal differences and
contradictions. All were based in Germany and held an official position with officer status (or
civilian equivalent) in British Military Government or the Control Commission for at least one
year during the period from May 1945 to May 1948. This study therefore portrays the views
of British people living and working in Germany, influenced by their personal experience of
the destruction in Germany at the end of the war, their contacts and, in some cases,
personal relationships with Germans, and the work they did in occupied Germany. Their
views were not necessarily typical of those who remained in Britain, such as government
ministers, members of parliament, civil servants, visiting journalists or the general public.
Twelve was the maximum number who could be considered in sufficient depth within the
time and space constraints of the thesis, whilst just enough to be representative of the most
senior and influential figures in the occupation. No one British individual was so dominant
that a detailed study of this one person would, in itself, explain the most significant aspects
of the occupation, or was so representative that he could act as a model or ‘ideal-type’ for all
the British occupiers.
17
Also, data is not available in sufficient depth or quantity to allow a
large-scale statistical survey of British occupiers or quantitative analysis of the themes
examined in this study, such as their reactions to the death and destruction caused by war.
Even if such data were available, this approach could not take into account the fact that
some individuals were much more influential than others.
To examine different aspects of the occupation, the twelve individuals have been
categorised in three groups of four on the basis of three criteria: their degree of authority,
power and influence, whether they worked in a civil or military position during the war, and
their age. All could be considered part of the British professional middle classes, by family
background, education and employment. All except one attended private rather than state17
The two most influential British individuals in occupied Germany were Montgomery and Robertson, the first and
third Military Governors. Both are included among the twelve selected for this study.
16
funded schools.
18
Further categorisation by social class was therefore not required, as this
was already implied through the primary selection of individuals with significant power and
authority. Classification by gender was also not appropriate, as nearly all those in the most
senior positions in the armed forces and Control Commission were men.
19
The views
expressed by the individuals researched in this study were therefore representative of the
governing elite, but may not have been typical of all British people in occupied Germany,
especially those working in more junior positions, women, who were most commonly
employed in welfare or other support roles, or those working for the International Military
Tribunal, United Nations agencies, or for voluntary organisations.
Although the concept of ‘generation’ has been widely used as an explanatory category in
studies of twentieth century Germany,
20
categorisation by age cohort or ‘generation’ was
found to be of limited use in this study of British individuals in occupied Germany, and was
not privileged above the two other criteria used to categorise twelve individuals into groups
of four: their degree of power and influence, and whether they held civil or military positions
during the war. Classification by age or ‘generation’ has been little used in studies of British
history, which have tended to focus on other categories of analysis, notably social class,
gender, and political allegiance. Apart from the obvious and significant contrast between the
military generals, born in the late 1880s and 1890s, and the younger generation of junior
officers, born in the 1920s, there do not appear to be British equivalents for the various
‘generations’ described by German historians, such as the ‘Hitler Jugend’, the ‘Flakhelfer’ or
the ‘1945ers’.
21
Although age or ‘generation’ has been used in this study, in particular to
explain differences in outlook between the ‘younger generation’ of junior officers and their
18
Thexton’s school is not known. All the others except Chaloner, (who went to a ‘progressive’ Montessori school),
attended well-established leading English public schools.
19
The only exception was Dame (Katherine) Jane Trefusis Forbes, head of the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force
(WAAF) from 1939-1943, and Director of Welfare Services for the Control Commission in Germany from 1946-8.
20
Ulrike Jureit & Michael Wildt (eds.), Generationen: Zur Relevanz eines wissenschaftlichen Grundbegriffs
(Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 2005).
21
Dirk Moses, German Intellectuals and the Nazi Past (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Christina von
Hodenberg, Konsens und Krise: Eine Geschichte der westdeutschen Medienöffentlichkeit 1945-1973 (Göttingen,
Wallstein Verlag, 2006); Ulrich Herbert, ‘Liberalisierung als Lernprozeß. Die Bundesrepublik in der deutschen
Geschichte – eine Skizze’ in Ulrich Herbert (ed.), Wandlungsprozesse in Westdeutschland: Belastung, Integration,
Liberalisierung 1945-1980 (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2002), pp7-49; Mary Fulbrook, Dissonant Lives:
Generations and violence through the German dictatorships (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)
17
older senior officers,
22
it proved most effective when used in combination with other criteria,
rather than as a primary classification.
The first group discussed in this study comprises those with the highest level of authority,
power and influence: the three Military Governors of the British Zone – Field-Marshal
Bernard Montgomery, Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Sholto Douglas and General Sir
Brian Robertson – together with one of their senior generals, Sir Alec Bishop, who held a
position at the top of Military Government for an extended period of five years and was also
highly influential. Montgomery, Robertson and Bishop shared similar views, which were
typical of the army generals who ran Military Government in the first year of the occupation.
Douglas was the exception among the three military governors. His more pragmatic
approach is contrasted with the idealism of the other three and represents a second,
subsidiary strand among those at the top of the occupation.
Had the study been confined to those at the top, it would have presented a partial view of
British policies and their outcomes. Although the army generals remained highly influential
throughout the occupation, civilians were appointed to many senior positions as Regional
Commissioners and departmental heads in the Control Commission. The second group
studied comprises four civilian diplomats and administrators responsible for promoting
democracy in Germany, whose approach to their work complemented or contrasted with that
of the Military Governors and army generals. Harold Ingrams was a professional diplomat
and colonial administrator with responsibility, as head of the Administration and Local
Government branch of the Control Commission, for restoring democracy at local level within
the British Zone. Austen Albu and Allan Flanders were two committed international socialists,
appointed by John Hynd, the minister for Germany, to senior positions in the Political
Division. Vaughan Berry was one of four civilian Regional Commissioners who, in May 1946,
replaced the military Corps Commanders as the most senior representatives of Military
Government at regional level. Studying the four selected individuals demonstrates some of
the diversity of aims within one policy area, governmental organisation and the promotion of
democracy. Civilian officials in other Control Commission divisions attempted, in similarly
22
See page 201ff below for a more detailed discussion of the advantages and limitations of classifying ‘young
officers with no adult experience but war’, as a ‘younger generation’, in contrast to the older, much smaller, but more
uniform and therefore ‘stronger generation’ of military generals. The third group, of four civilian administrators, does
not fit easily with any concept of ‘generations’.
18
diverse ways and with mixed success, to revive the economy, reform the police, control print
and broadcast media, or restore the education system, purged of its Nazi elements.
In order to assess whether younger officers, lower down the ranks, shared the aims of those
at the top of the Military Government, the third group comprises four young officers
responsible for the implementation of policy. They therefore represent the opposite end of
the spectrum from the Military Governors on criteria of age and influence, and could be
considered a ‘younger generation’ with no adult experience but war, in contrast with the older
‘generation’ of military governors and army generals, and the very diverse group of civilian
administrators. Two of the four ‘young officers’, John Chaloner and Michael Howard, held
responsible positions with considerable freedom of action and were influential in their own
right. This was not atypical. Many other junior officers were given positions of great
responsibility, freedom to act on their own initiative and were highly influential in their own
areas, for example Ivan Hirst, the British officer who ‘saved’ the Volkswagen works from
being dismantled.
The other two young officers were selected in order to explore the subjective experiences of
British people in occupied Germany in more detail. Both were the subject of oral history
interviews I conducted for this study. Jan Thexton approached the Centre for Contemporary
British History (CCBH) in September 2007 asking if it would be possible to record his life
history. His experience was especially relevant for this study, as his role changed completely
during the occupation, from removing war plants and equipment as reparations, to assisting
British manufacturers sell weapons to the newly formed West German armed services in the
1950s. He met and married his wife in Germany. Sir Michael Palliser agreed to be
interviewed after I met him in September 2009 at a Witness Seminar organised by the Allied
Museum of Berlin, at which he spoke of his experiences as a young officer in the city.
23
His
role at the time was that of an ordinary and, by his own account, typical junior officer, which
acts as a counterweight to the apparently more exceptional experiences of the other three in
this group. He subsequently had a distinguished career in the Foreign Office, rising to
Permanent Under-Secretary in 1975.
23
The Allied Museum, Berlin, The Windsor Park Seminar. Berlin: The British Perspective 1945-1990, 1-2 Sep. 2009
19
The four selected young officers were not necessarily typical of a fairly large and diverse
group and unlike the senior officers and civilian administrators, little written evidence of their
activities has survived in the archives. To compensate for any bias arising from a relatively
small sample and a dependence on personal accounts rather than contemporary
documents, research findings for this group were validated through reference to oral history
interviews with a further twenty young men and one woman, undertaken by the Imperial War
Museum (IWM) Sound Archive. The views expressed by the IWM interviewees on the issues
examined in this study, such as their personal aims, relationships with Germans and
attitudes to Russian soldiers and Displaced Persons (DPs), were consistent with those of the
four selected individuals and have been cited as evidence where appropriate. Exceptions
have also been noted. The criteria used to select interviews from the IWM Sound Archive
and methodological issues arising from the use of this particular source are discussed in
Appendix A.
Exclusions
No individuals have been deliberately excluded and as far as I am aware, all the most
significant published accounts and memoirs written by those who worked for British Military
Government and the Control Commission have been consulted. Material written by or
relating to a wide range of individuals, in addition to the twelve ‘protagonists’, has been used
to provide additional background and context.
24
Sources in which the authors stated what they aimed to achieve, such as personal memoirs
and correspondence, oral history interviews, official reports and policy recommendations,
speeches, newspaper articles or radio broadcasts, exist for only a limited number of people.
Consequently the selection was affected by the availability of suitable sources. Generals
Gerald Templer and Brian Horrocks, for example, were considered for inclusion among the
twelve selected individuals, as both were highly influential during the first year of the
occupation, but I found relatively little material on their time in Germany in the archives.
There was, however, no suggestion in the materials I consulted that their views differed
significantly from those of Montgomery, Robertson, Bishop or other influential army generals.
Similarly Vaughan Berry, whose personal papers are held at Somerset Heritage Centre and
24
See bibliography
20
Bath Record Office, was selected in preference to his three colleagues appointed as
Regional Commissioners in May 1946, William Asbury, Hugh de Crespigny and Gordon
Macready, whose personal papers have been destroyed or are not publicly available.
Some important individuals were not selected because they joined the Military Government
or Control Commission towards the end of or after the period covered, such as the highly
influential education advisors, Sir Robert Birley and Professor T.H. Marshall. Because the
focus of the study is on British people in occupied Germany, I also decided to exclude
returning German or East European exiles, many of whom volunteered to join the British
army during the war and later worked for the Control Commission, such as the economic
advisor, E.F. (Fritz) Schumacher, agricultural advisor Werner Klatt, and press officers
Michael Thomas and Robert Maxwell.
The aims and activities of politicians and civil servants based in London, including the two
government ministers responsible for internal German affairs, John Hynd and Frank
Pakenham, Lord Longford, were explored but not researched in depth. Contemporary
accounts by visiting writers, journalists and other individuals who played an indirect,
unofficial, or temporary part in the British occupation were also consulted but not examined
in depth. A full list is provided in the bibliography.
Time period
The time period covered in this study is from the end of the war in Europe in May 1945 to
currency reform and the start of the Berlin air-lift in May and June 1948. These boundaries
are flexible. Allied troops first entered Germany at the end of 1944 and planning for the
occupation started much earlier, so there is occasional reference to these earlier phases of
the occupation. The election of an independent West German government in September
1949 or the formal end of the occupation in 1955 were considered as alternative end points,
but would have required the inclusion of more material than was possible within the time and
space available. However, some policies took time to play out and reference is made to later
events and outcomes where this appears relevant. The focus of the study, however, is on
the first three years, when British military officers and civilian officials made a rapid
21
adjustment from occupation policies devised during the war to those they considered
appropriate for peace.
How the thesis is organised
The thesis is divided into three parts, each addressing one of the three groups of four
individuals. Although there is considerable overlap, there is also a general chronological and
thematic progression through the thesis. The first part attempts to explain why those at the
top of Military Government initiated a policy of reconstruction soon after the start of the
occupation and how this developed over the first two years. The second part examines
different approaches to achieving political renewal and how the emphasis changed over the
three years from May 1945 to May 1948. The third part assesses the motivation of a group of
younger and more junior officers, examines whether they shared the aims of their seniors,
and discusses the issue of personal relationships between British and Germans and the
contribution this made to personal reconciliation between former enemies. In the final
chapter I have brought together common themes and drawn some conclusions which apply
to the thesis as a whole.
1.3
Sources
A wide range of sources has been used, including memoirs and autobiographies, official
documents in the public archives, personal papers and oral history interviews, with the
advantages and disadvantages normally attaching to each. The focus of the research, the
aims and intentions of individuals, is necessarily subjective. Much of the evidence presented
in the thesis portrays the situation in occupied Germany through the eyes of the twelve
individuals. In some cases, such as personal memoirs, autobiographies and oral history
interviews, accounts were generated with hindsight and are therefore subject to the fallibility
of memory and to conscious or unconscious attempts to distort the record to create a
coherent narrative of past lives. For this reason, wherever possible, subjective accounts
were checked against other sources.
The British occupation of Germany is now on the edge of living memory. Oral history
interviews I conducted for this study comprise the principal source for two of the twelve
individuals, Palliser and Thexton. Interviews conducted by others were used as subsidiary
22
sources for Robertson, Howard and Chaloner,
25
and interviews with twenty British men and
one woman held by the IWM Sound Archive were consulted to provide background and
context. Oral history offers similar difficulties in analysis and interpretation to memoirs and
autobiographies and, as with all historical sources, the context and the purpose for which the
record was created needs to be understood. However, it can reveal aspects which are not
easily accessible from the official record, in particular the subjective experience of the
individual: how it felt at the time, why they believed they were there, assumptions taken for
granted and only understood, expressed and recorded in later accounts.
26
Some historians have claimed that oral interviews and personal life histories are more
problematic than other sources.
27
What is left out can be as important as what is included
and errors can reveal hidden meanings.
28
Sociologists have pointed out that biographies are
not only sources of raw data, but social artefacts, created at the time of re-telling. Differences
between what happened at the time and the story told in a later account may arise in three
ways: through differences between what happened and what was experienced by the
subject; through the fallibility of memory; and through the process of re-telling and
construction of a narrative after the event.
29
However, the same issues apply to
contemporary written documents in the public archives, though normally over a shorter time
period, as these are also social artefacts, constructed for a specific purpose.
30
Life histories and biographies may be especially problematical when used to research events
and experiences which have been contested, and subsequently re-interpreted in personal or
25
Oral History Interview with General Lord Robertson of Oakridge, 11 August 1970 by Theodore A. Wilson (Harry S.
Truman Library & Museum) [www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/robertsn.htm accessed 12 May 2010]; IWM Sound
Archive accession number 31405 (Michael Howard); Der Spiegel private business archive, interviews with John
Chaloner, 21 Oct. 2003 and 2 Nov. 2006
26
As Alessandro Portelli has noted, the subjectivity of the speaker is an advantage for oral history, conveying
emotional content, feeling and attitudes as much as facts, Alessandro Portelli, ‘What makes oral history different’ in
Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson (eds.), The Oral History Reader (London and New York: Routledge, 1998),
pp63-74
27
Gabriele Rosenthal, Erlebte und erzählte Lebensgeschichte: Gestalt und Struktur biographischer
Selbsbeschreibungen (Frankfurt & New York: Campus, 1995); Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson (eds.), The Oral
History Reader (London and New York: Routledge, 1998); Alistair Thomson, ‘Life Stories and Historical Analysis’ in
Gunn and Faire (eds.), Research Methods for History, pp101-117
28
Alessandro Portelli, The Death of Luigi Trastulli and Other Stories (Albany: State University of New York Press,
1991)
29
Rosenthal, Erlebte und erzählte Lebensgeschichte, p14
30
For example a report by Goronwy Rees of a tour of the British Zone with William Strang in July 1945 (FO
1056/540), and many other contemporary written documents, need to be read with an awareness of possible errors
introduced through the same three factors: differences between the situation as it was and what the author
perceived and experienced at the time, possible lapses in memory during the time that elapsed between the event
occurring and the author committing his or her memories to paper, and the purpose of the record and the process of
writing the document, taking account of its method of creation and expected audience.
23
public memories.
31
In other cases the interviewee may have performed an action,
participated in an event, or seen or heard something of which they were later ashamed,
which they thought might cause conflict with the interviewer, or which was traumatic, leading
to later adjustment in how it was remembered or re-told. Although valuable in helping to build
a model of good interviewing practice, it should not be assumed that similar difficulties apply
in all situations. Gabriele Rosenthal’s critique of life history stories,
32
for example, was based
on her experience interviewing former Hitler Youth members, German people ‘living with a
Nazi past’, and Holocaust survivors in Israel. The example of a German train driver reluctant
to talk about driving a trainload of prisoners to Auschwitz, or her own experiences as a nonJewish German woman interviewing Holocaust survivors in Israel, were likely to raise issues
regarding the interpretation of evidence, which do not necessarily apply in the much less
contested circumstances of British army veterans interviewed for the IWM Sound Archive,
Robertson’s interview for the Truman Presidential Library, or my own interviews with Palliser
and Thexton.
33
Wherever possible, personal accounts were validated through reference to contemporary
sources. There is an abundance of contemporary written material in the archives. Although
this is often fragmentary, poorly indexed and, in the case of personal papers, not located in
its original context, I was able to find many documents which provided direct evidence of
individuals’ aims and intentions, as expressed at the time in different contexts. For the first
two groups, the military generals and civilian administrators, contemporary written materials
in the National Archives and collections of personal papers in other archives comprised the
principle sources used. In the case of the four young officers discussed in chapter seven,
however, relatively few contemporary written sources were available and a comprehensive
validation of personal evidence was not possible. As Paul Thompson has noted, lapses in
memory and confusion over specific events are not uncommon, especially among elderly
31
Many of the articles in Perks and Thomson (eds.), The Oral History Reader, which discuss the accuracy and
reliability of oral history records refer to subjects heavily contested in public memory, or to projects not generally
typical of historical research, such as anthropological studies or interviewing people with learning disabilities.
32
Rosenthal, Erlebte und erzählte Lebensgeschichte
33
The situation in France appears to have been different again. In his history of the German occupation of France,
Robert Gildea (Professor of French History at Oxford University) argued that, in this case, as the official myths of
occupation and resistance became established in public consciousness after the war, some memories of the
occupation were suppressed. Gildea claimed that the 55 oral history interviews he undertook for the study enabled
him to discover different and conflicting views, which were as, if not more, credible than the official record, writing
that: ‘There is a school of thought that dismisses oral history as unreliable evidence, as the ranting of old men and
women … My own experience, however, shows that with the passage of time those who witnessed the Occupation
are willing to talk candidly as never before.’ Robert Gildea, Marianne in Chains - In Search of the German
Occupation 1940-1945 (London: Macmillan, 2002), p10
24
people, whose memories are usually better at recalling recurrent events, atmosphere and
characters, than specific details of past events.
34
Nevertheless, by cross referencing
individual accounts with one another and with contemporary records, it was possible to form
a judgement as to their accuracy and reliability. Perhaps surprisingly, despite using sources
created at different times for different purposes, and in contrast with well-documented
concerns regarding the fallibility of memory, later memoirs, oral history and other interviews
were remarkably consistent with the contemporary record,
35
though there were some errors
and omissions, assumptions based on hearsay rather than personal experience and
differences in emphasis and interpretation.
36
As expected in a study of twelve individuals,
with great differences of age, personal background, previous experience, official
responsibilities and political views, attitudes were diverse, but there was little evidence of any
significant distortion, concealment, or gaps in the evidence collected.
As Mary Fulbrook has argued, ‘subjective perceptions and self-representations themselves
form a crucial part of history.’
37
Individuals have different experiences and perceive the same
or similar events differently. Tracking how their self-perceptions changed over time can
reveal hidden expectations and unspoken assumptions. Their perceptions can be related to
each other, and to the historical context, to identify patterns and trends. Although many of
the sources used in this study are subjective accounts, they can therefore help us
understand the historical context and structures within which the individuals lived and
worked.
The overall impression I gained from reading many different accounts, was that their
understanding and personal interpretation of the occupation, and their role within it, had
been created while they were in Germany or soon after they left, and remained largely
unchanged since. It was an seen as an exceptional time, in some cases a formative
34
Paul Thompson, The Voice of the Past (Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), p137
For example, I expected to find that attitudes towards communism and the Soviet Union expressed in later
memoirs and interviews would have been influenced by the prevalent Cold War mentality of the 1950s and 1960s,
and therefore different from those expressed in official records held at The National Archives, but this was not the
case. Many earlier records from 1945-8 showed similarly hostile attitudes.
36
For example, many references to Russian soldiers in Berlin by IWM interviewees were based on hearsay rather
than on their personal experience. See below pp235-237. Although their accounts may have been exaggerated or
based on atypical examples, and should not therefore be used as evidence of Russian soldiers’ actual behaviour in
Berlin, the accounts comprise a useful indication of British soldiers’ attitudes prior to the Berlin blockade, and are
consistent with other accounts, such as my interview with Palliser and contemporary written evidence, such as
Montgomery’s reports, memos and conferences.
37
Mary Fulbrook, Dissonant Lives: Generations and violence through the German dictatorships (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011), p5
35
25
influence on the rest of their lives, but also as a neglected period, not well understood by
those who had not been there in person, and one which deserved greater prominence as
one of the ‘untold stories’ of the war and its aftermath.
A more detailed note of the various sources used, and the advantages and disadvantages
pertaining to each, is provided in Appendix A.
1.4
Historiography
This thesis lies at the intersection of the national histories of Britain and of Germany, at a
time of transition between two contrasting periods described by Eric Hobsbawm as ‘The Age
of Catastrophe’ and ‘The Golden Age’.
38
Historians of modern Germany have generally
treated the occupation as part of the pre-history of the Federal Republic (BRD) in the West
and the German Democratic Republic (DDR) in the East, leading to liberalisation,
democratisation and eventual reunification in 1990.
39
Alternatively, they have emphasised
the legacy of death and destruction, twelve years of Nazi dictatorship and the Holocaust on
the subsequent history of Germany.
40
This thesis aims to contribute to both approaches. It
clarifies the motivation and intentions of the British governing elite in occupied Germany, at a
critical time during the first three years of the occupation. It also provides a view of their
reactions to death and destruction, the war and the Holocaust, which can be compared to
those of others who were in Germany at the same time, including Germans, the victorious
Allies, and DPs of many nationalities.
As a study of twelve British people who were for a short time the rulers of a country they had
recently defeated in war, it also forms part of the history of British engagement (and
disengagement) with the outside world, as a great power in Europe and as global empire
builders and administrators. As the author of a recent study of Anglo-German relations in
occupied Hamburg wrote: ‘when the British were discussing the Germans, they were also
38
Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes (London: Abacus, 1995)
For example Konrad H. Jarausch, After Hitler: Recivilizing Germans, 1945-1995 (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2006); Ulrich Herbert, ‘Liberalisierung als Lernprozeß. Die Bundesrepublik in der deutschen Geschichte –
eine Skizze’ in Ulrich Herbert (ed.), Wandlungsprozesse in Westdeutschland: Belastung, Integration, Liberalisierung
1945-1980 (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2002), pp7-49; Richard Bessel, Germany 1945: from War to Peace
(London, New York, Sydney, Toronto: Simon & Schuster, 2009)
40
Jeffrey Herf, Divided Memory: The Nazi Past in the Two Germanys (Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard
University Press, 1997); Richard Bessel and Dirk Schumann, (eds.), Life after Death: Approaches to a Cultural and
Social History of Europe during the 1940s and 1950s (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Frank Biess
& Robert G. Moeller (eds.), Histories of the Aftermath: The Legacies of the Second World War on Europe (New York
& Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2010)
39
26
talking about themselves.’
41
Anglo-German relations have retained a prominence created by
over a century of economic rivalry and two world wars, which has still not been resolved after
nearly seventy years of peace and cooperation.
42
Angus Calder, for example, argued that
British identity was reshaped during the war as the antithesis of everything that was
perceived as German.
43
A study of the occupation can contribute to the history of Britain as
well as to that of Germany.
The first histories of the British occupation of Germany were written by officers who were
there at the time or with their close cooperation, notably Michael Balfour and John Mair, Four
Power Control in Germany and Austria 1945-1946, published in 1956, and the relevant
volume of the official history of the war by Frank Donnison, Civil Affairs and Military
Government. North-West Europe 1944-1946, published in 1961.
44
Subsequent historical
studies concentrated on the political context, international relations and the emergence of
45
the Cold War.
Issues such as whether the division of Germany was inevitable and when
was the ‘Turning Point’ in British policy towards Germany continued to be debated well into
the 1990s.
46
Many generals and senior administrators in Germany published their memoirs
or were the subject of biographies.
47
Most of the early studies shared a positive view of the
occupation, the creation of a western, anti-communist alliance, and the British contribution to
the ‘miracle’ of a stable and prosperous West Germany.
41
48
Frances Rosenfeld, The Anglo-German Encounter in Occupied Hamburg, 1945-50 (PhD Diss: Columbia
University, 2006), p45
42
On Anglo-German relations see Anthony J. Nichols, Always Good Neighbours – Never Good Friends? AngloGerman Relations 1949-2001 (London: German Historical Institute London, 2005); Gerald Hughes, ‘“Don’t let’s be
beastly to the Germans”: Britain and the German Affair in History’, Twentieth Century British History, Vol.17, No.2,
2006, pp257-283; John Ramsden, Don’t Mention the War: The British and the Germans since 1890 (London: Little
Brown, 2006); Patrick Major, ‘Britain and Germany: A Love-Hate Relationship’, German History, Vol.26, No.4, 2008,
pp457-468
43
Angus Calder, The Myth of the Blitz (London: Jonathan Cape, 1991), p196
44
Michael Balfour and John Mair, Four Power Control in Germany and Austria 1945-1946 (Oxford: Survey of
International Affairs 1939-1946, Oxford University Press, 1956); Frank Donnison, Civil Affairs and Military
Government. North-West Europe 1944-1946 (London: HMSO, 1961)
45
Robert G. Moeller, ‘Writing the History of West Germany’ in Robert G. Moeller (ed.), West Germany under
Construction: Politics, Society and Culture in the Adenauer Era (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press,
1997), pp1-30
46
Josef Foschepoth, ‘British interest in the division of Germany after the Second World War’, Journal of
Contemporary History, Vol.21, 1986; Anne Deighton, The Impossible Peace: Britain, the Division of Germany and
the Origins of the Cold War (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990); John E. Farquharson, ‘From Unity to Division: what
prompted Britain to change its policy in Germany in 1946’, European History Quarterly, Vol.26, 1996, pp81-123
47
For an overview of the extensive historiography on Montgomery see Colin Baxter, Field Marshal Bernard Law
Montgomery 1887-1976: A Selected Bibliography (Westport, Connecticut, London, Greenwood Press, 1999).
Robertson did not keep a diary or write his memoirs but was the subject of a biography by David Williamson, A Most
Diplomatic General: The life of General Lord Robertson of Oakridge (London, Washington: Brasseys, 1996). Other
senior British officers, diplomats and administrators who have written memoirs or been the subject of biographies
include Sholto Douglas, Brian Horrocks, Alec Bishop, Gerald Templer, Alec Cairncross, William Strang, Noel Annan
and Robert Birley. A full list is provided in the bibliography.
48
E.g. Brian Robertson, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, ‘A Miracle? Potsdam 1945 – Western Germany 1965’,
International Affairs, Vol.41, No.3, (1965), pp401-410
27
In contrast to self-congratulatory accounts by British generals and officials, many historians
in the 1970s and 1980s portrayed the British as incompetent, ineffective or as hindering
German attempts to reform the structure of government and society, echoing earlier criticism
in both the British and German press.
‘haunted by the past.’
disaster area.’
51
50
49
British planning for the occupation had been
The British Zone of occupation in 1945-6 was ‘a badly managed
Radical German historians reflected contemporary left-wing concerns that
West German society remained authoritarian and repressive and had never been properly
democratised, liberalised or modernised. They argued, in a debate over ‘Neuanfang oder
Restauration’, that the end of the war and the ‘collapse’ of May 1945 were not a definitive
break with the past, as suggested by the idea of Stunde Null, Zero Hour, but the precursor to
a conservative restoration, aided and abetted by the Allies, in which many elements of
Weimar and Nazi Germany reappeared in the Federal Republic of the Adenauer era.
52
The role of the British occupiers in the immediate post-war period and their contribution to
the early development of the Federal Republic was further marginalised or ignored, in the
debate on whether the ‘Americanization’ of German industry, culture and society was to be
welcomed, as helping to promote liberal democracy and the social market economy, or
deplored, signifying a decline in quality and standards and the ‘Coca-colonization’ of German
society.
53
When US and German historians referred to ‘Allied’ policies or attitudes, the British
contribution was either assumed to be identical to the American or ignored, in view of
49
For example Günter Trittel, ‘Von der “Verwaltung des Mangels” zur “Verhinderung der Neuordnung”. Ein
Uberblick über die Hauptprobleme der Wirtschaftspolitik in der Britischen Zone’ in Claus Scharf and Hans-Jürgen
Schröder (eds.), Die Deutschlandpolitik Grossbritanniens und die Britische Zone (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag,
1979), pp129-149. For criticism of the occupation in the British press and Parliament see Jochen Thies, ‘“What is
going on in Germany?” Britische Militärverwaltung in Deutschland 1945-6’ in Scharf and Schröder (eds.), Die
Deutschlandpolitik Grossbritanniens und die Britische Zone, pp29-50; Matthew Frank, ‘The New Morality – Victor
Gollancz, ‘Save Europe Now’ and the German Refugee Crisis, 1945-46’, Twentieth Century British History, Vol.17,
No.2, 2006, pp230-256. For contemporary criticism of the occupation by Germans see Barbara Marshall, ‘German
attitudes to British Military Government 1945-1947’, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol.15, 1980, pp655-684;
Josef Foschepoth, ‘German reaction to Defeat and Occupation’ in Robert G. Moeller (ed.), West Germany under
Construction, pp73-89
50
Lothar Kettenacker, ‘British Post-war planning for Germany: haunted by the Past’ in Ulrike Jordan (ed.),
Conditions of Surrender, Britons and Germans witness the end of the war (London & New York: I.B. Tauris
Publishers, 1997)
51
John E. Farquharson, ‘The British Occupation of Germany, 1945-1946: A Badly Managed Disaster Area?’
German History, Vol.11, No.3, 1993, pp316-338
52
See, for example, articles in the section on ‘Neuanfang oder Restauration: Neuordnungsversuche in der
britischen Besatzungszone’ in Josef Foschepoth & Rolf Steininger (eds.), Britische Deutschland- und
Besatzungspolitik (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1985)
53
Uta G. Poiger, ‘Rock ‘n’ Roll, Female Sexuality and the Cold War Battle over German Identities’ in Robert G.
Moeller (ed.), West Germany under Construction, p381; Ralph Willett, The Americanisation of Germany 1945-1949
(London and New York: Routledge, 1989). See also the collection of articles on ‘Americanization’, by Boehling,
Gienow-Hecht, Goedde, Kroes and Poiger in Diplomatic History, Vol.23, No.1, (Winter 1999)
28
increasing US dominance throughout Europe, in all spheres of human activity; political,
economic, social and cultural.
54
As one historian commented, writing in 1997:
Only recently has research begun to depart from the German perspective that focused on
unsuccessful and destructive British policies and that characterized British policy as
hypocritical and myopic, even though British policy was quite insignificant, given the
55
dominant position of the United States.
According to Bernd Weisbrod, this process has gone too far and historians have incorrectly
labelled as ‘Americanization’ social and cultural change in cases such as broadcast
television, where the example of the BBC was highly influential, different countries in Europe
evolved their own national institutions and practices, and West Germany followed a British
rather than an American model. Weisbrod suggested that his colleagues’ historical
perception may be due as much to US cultural policy and the ‘Americanization’ of German
post-war historians, as to any genuine ‘Americanization’ of the West German press
broadcast media.
or
56
As Robert Moeller noted, the trend towards social and cultural history came late to the study
of post-war Germany.
57
In addition to exploring processes of ‘cultural transmission’ and
‘Americanization’, historians found evidence of social and cultural continuities within
Germany which spanned the great divide of 1945.
58
Interest in any British contribution to
post-war German society was diminished still further, as historians discovered that, despite
being subject to a political and economic settlement imposed upon them and to geopolitical
forces outside their control, ‘in the 1950s West Germans made their own history and created
themselves’.
59
More recently, historians have been interested in how a violent past has been remembered,
commemorated and mourned. A collection of articles edited by Richard Bessel and Dirk
54
E.g. Petra Goedde, GIs and Germans: Culture, gender and foreign relations 1945-49 (New Haven & London: Yale
University Press, 2003); Christina von Hodenberg, Konsens und Krise: Eine Geschichte der westdeutschen
Medienöffentlichkeit 1945-1973 (Göttingen, Wallstein Verlag, 2006)
55
Josef Foschepoth, ‘German reaction to Defeat and Occupation’, p87
56
Bernd Weisbrod, ‘Eine ganz unamerikanische Tante: Die BBC und der nationale Medienstil in der Nachkriegszeit’
in Belinda Davis, Thomas Lindenburger, Michael Wildt (eds.), Alltag, Erfahrung, Eigensinn (Frankfurt, New York:
Campus Verlag, 2008), p292
57
Moeller, ‘Writing the History of West Germany’, p5
58
E.g. James M. Diehl ‘Change and Continuity in the Treatment of Gernan Kriegsopfer’ in Moeller (ed.), West
Germany under Construction, pp93-108; Curt Garner, ‘Public Service Personnel in West Germany in the 1950s:
Controversial Policy Decisions and their Effects of Social Composition, Gender Structure, and the Role of Former
Nazis’ in Moeller (ed.), West Germany under Construction, pp135-195; Martin Broszat, Klaus-Dietmar Henke and
Hans Woller (eds.), Von Stalingrad zur Währungsreform: Zur Sozialgeschichte des Umbruchs in Deutschland
(Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1988)
59
Moeller, ‘Writing the History of West Germany’, p2
29
Schumann, for example, re-examined public and private memories, with the aim of
understanding of how ordinary citizens survived and emerged from the horrors of war.
60
There is a long-standing tradition in German historiography of Vergangenheitsbewältigung,
or critical engagement with the past. In part this was a response to the challenge posed by
theories, such as the ‘Silence over the Holocaust’ or the ‘Inability to Mourn’,
61
which
attempted to explain how individual and collective memories can be distorted following mass
violence and trauma. Following this tradition, W.G. Sebald, for example, criticised ‘people’s
ability to forget what they do not want to know, to overlook what is before their eyes’.
62
Historical studies, such as the volume edited by Bessel and Schumann, have shown that
theories such as these, based mainly on collective psychology, need to be re-evaluated in
the light of historical evidence, to provide a more nuanced view of what Germans and others
in Europe did and did not remember,
In the 1980s and 1990s, after official British documents became available for study in
accordance with the thirty year rule, historians of the Occupation produced monographs and
articles on various subjects, covering many aspects of British policy, including, inter alia,
economic development, industrial policy, denazification, re-education, food and rationing,
and case studies of specific geographical areas.
63
British aims in occupied Germany were
described as the restoration of peace and the preservation of Britain’s status as a great
power,
64
economic security and economic reconstruction,
60
65
the restoration of conditions of
Richard Bessel and Dirk Schumann (eds.), Life after Death: Approaches to a Cultural and Social History of
Europe during the 1940s and 1950s (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). See also Robert G. Moeller,
War Stories: The Search for a Usable Past in the Federal Republic of Germany (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London:
University of California Press, 2001); Monica Black, ‘Death and the Making of West Berlin, 1948-1961’, German
History, Vol.27, No.1, 2009, pp6-31; Alf Lüdtke and Bernd Weisbrod (eds.), No Man’s Land of Violence: Extreme
Wars in the 20th Century (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2006); Frank Biess & Robert G. Moeller (eds.), Histories of
the Aftermath: The Legacies of the Second World War on Europe (New York & Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2010)
61
Alexander and Margarete Mitscherlich, Die Unfähigkeit zu trauern: Grundlagen kollektiven verhaltens (Munich,
1967); Hannah Arendt, ‘The Aftermath of Nazi Rule: Report from Germany’, Commentary 10, October, 1950
62
W.G. Sebald, On the Natural History of Destruction (London: Hamish Hamilton, 2003), p41
63
Ian D. Turner (ed.), Reconstruction in Post-War Germany: British Occupation Policy and the Western Zones
1945-1955 (Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd, 1989); Adolf Birke and Eva Mayring (eds.), Britische Besatzing in
Deutschland: Aktienerschliessung und Forschungsfelder (London: German Historical Institute, 1992); Alec
Cairncross, The Price of War: British Policy on German Reparations 1941 – 49 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986); Alan
Kramer, The West German Economy, 1945-1955 (Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd, 1991); Jill Jones, ‘Eradicating
Nazism from the British Zone of Germany: early policy and practice’, German History, Vol.8, No.2, 1990, pp145-162;
Nicholas Pronay and Keith Wilson (eds.), The Political Re-education of Germany and her Allies after World War II
(London & Sydney: Croom Helm, 1985); Michael Ahrens, Die Briten in Hamburg: Besatzerleben 1945-1958 (Munich
and Hamburg: Dölling und Gallitz Verlag, 2011); Gisela Schwarze, Eine Region im demokratischen Aufbau: Der
Regierungsbezirk Münster 1945-6 (Düsseldorf: Schwann, 1984)
64
Lothar Kettenacker, Krieg zur Friedenssicherung: Die Deutschlandplanung der britischen Regierung während des
zweiten Weltkrieges (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), p11, p517
65
Ian Turner, ‘British Policy Towards German Industry, 1945-9: Reconstruction, Restriction or Exploitation?’ in
Turner (ed.), Reconstruction in Post-War Germany, pp67-91
30
economic stability,
66
political re-education,
67
68
the promotion of British democracy
propagation the British ‘way of life’ or ‘spreading our creed’.
69
and the
Although these descriptions
are valid as broad generalisations, there has been little attempt to explain how conflicting
aims were reconciled, how they evolved over time, or the motivation of key individuals
responsible for the formation and implementation of policy. Whereas consolidated histories
of the US and French Zones and of the Russians in Germany are available,
70
there is still no
single volume history of the British Zone which attempts to link these various threads
together and place the activities of the British in Germany in the context of the post-war
national histories of Germany and Britain.
71
In addition to the academic historiography, and perhaps in part because there is no generally
accepted overview of the history of the British occupation of Germany, writers in other fields
have produced works which have influenced public perceptions of the period. These include
a five part television documentary, Zone of Occupation, first broadcast in 1981, which offered
a highly critical account of British activities and personnel, and Tom Bower’s books written in
the style of investigative journalism, Blind Eye to Murder and The Paperclip Conspiracy,
72
which provided an impassioned indictment of the Allies for not giving due consideration to
the victims of the Holocaust. Public perceptions have also been influenced by other media,
such as war films and Cold War spy thrillers and continue to be viewed through the distorted
lens of popular prejudices, football rivalry and well-known fictional representations of AngloGerman interactions, such as the television series, Fawlty Towers.
In the course of researching twelve selected individuals, I have drawn on sources from the
secondary literature in order to place them in their historical context. Sources are cited in the
66
Ian D. Turner, British Occupation Policy and its Effects on the Town of Wolfsburg and the Volkswagenwerk, 19451949 (PhD Diss: Manchester UMIST, 1984), p730
67
Pronay and Wilson (eds.), The Political Re-education of Germany, p1
68
Bessel, Germany 1945: from War to Peace, p288
69
Rosenfeld, The Anglo-German Encounter in Occupied Hamburg, p291
70
John Gimbel, The American Occupation of Germany: Politics and the Military, 1945-1949 (Stanford, California:
Stanford University Press, 1968); F. Roy Willis, The French in Germany: 1945-1949, (Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press, 1962); Norman Naimark, The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation,
1945-1949 (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
1995)
71
Apart from three popular rather than academic histories: Douglas Botting, In the Ruins of the Reich, (London:
George Allen & Unwin, 1985); Giles MacDonagh, After the Reich (London: John Murray (Publishers), 2007);
Frederick Taylor, Exorcising Hitler: The Occupation and Denazification of Germany (London: Bloomsbury, 2011).
Although published over twenty years ago, the best single volume summary of British academic research on the
occupation is still the compilation, Turner (ed.), Reconstruction in Post-War Germany.
72
Tom Bower, Blind Eye to Murder: Britain, America and the Purging of Nazi Germany – A Pledge Betrayed
(London: Little, Brown and Company, 1995); Tom Bower, The Paperclip Conspiracy: The Battle for the Spoils and
Secrets of Nazi Germany (London: Paladin, 1988)
31
footnotes where appropriate and a full list is provided in the bibliography. Some of the most
comprehensive works on themes and issues directly relevant to this thesis have not been
translated into English and so may not be familiar to some British historians. The most
significant secondary sources consulted, in both English and German, include Farquharson,
Trittel and Wildt on the food crisis,
73
Reusch on local government and administrative
74
Hurwitz on the ‘Fusion’ campaign in Berlin,
76
Kramer on the West German economy,
reform,
media,
77
75
Hodenberg on the West German
numerous works on German socialist
exiles in Britain, an unpublished thesis by Frances Rosenfeld on the Anglo-German
encounter in occupied Hamburg,
Spiegel
79
78
and Jacobmeyer on DPs.
Brawand on John Chaloner and the origins of Der
80
In summary, the historiography of the British occupation of Germany has progressed from
eye-witness accounts from Allied officers who were there at the time, through a period of
critical revision and re-interpretation in the 1970s and 1980s, when historians raised new
concerns and questioned the assumptions on which the early Federal Republic of Germany
was based, to the present, when historical study of the British in Germany remains a field of
specialist interest, but appears to have little connection with much of the mainstream national
historiography of post-war Germany or Britain. This study seeks to contribute to the relevant
historiographies, by providing a better understanding of the motivation, aims and intentions
of the British governing elite in occupied Germany. Through identifying some of the
limitations and constraints under which they operated, it also places individuals within their
historical context and explores one aspect of British engagement with the outside world, and
with Germany in particular.
73
John E. Farquharson, The Western Allies and the Politics of Food, Agrarian Management in Postwar Germany
(Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd, 1985); Günter J. Trittel, Hunger und Politik: Die Ernährungskrise in der Bizone (19451949), (Frankfurt & New York: Campus Verlag, 1990); Michael Wildt, Der Traum vom Sattwerden; Hunger und
Protest, Schwarzmarkt und Selbsthilfe in Hamburg 1945-1948 (Hamburg: VSA Verlag, 1986)
74
Ulrich Reusch, Deutsches Berufsbeamtentum und Britische Besatzung 1943-1947 (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1985)
75
Harold Hurwitz, Demokratie und Antikommunismus in Berlin nach 1945: Vol.4, Die Anfänge des Widerstands
(Cologne: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik, 1990)
76
Christina von Hodenberg, Konsens und Krise: Eine Geschichte der westdeutschen Medienöffentlichkeit 19451973 (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2006)
77
Alan Kramer, The West German Economy, 1945-1955 (Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd, 1991)
78
Frances Rosenfeld, The Anglo-German Encounter in Occupied Hamburg, 1945-50 (PhD Diss: Columbia
University, 2006)
79
Leo Brawand, Der Spiegel - ein Besatzungskind: Wie die Pressefreiheit nach Deutschland kam (Hamburg: EVA
Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 2007)
80
Wolfgang Jacobmeyer, Vom Zwangsarbeiter zum Heimatlosen Ausländer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1985)
32
Part I
Physical reconstruction:
The military governors and army generals
33
2
Bernard Montgomery,
Brian Robertson and
Alec
Bishop:
Creating order out of chaos and ‘rebuilding civilisation’: May
1945 – April 1946
‘Out of the chaos and confusion which the war has inflicted on Europe
we have to rebuild our European civilization.’
1
Historians have debated when and why British Policy changed after the end of the Second
2
World War, from holding Germany down to ‘putting Germany on its feet again.’ Was this
3
due to ‘a change of mood in Britain’ in early 1947, economic pressures in the winter of
4
1946, or the emergence of the Cold War and the perceived threat from the Soviet Union, in
which case, was the key turning point the Moscow Foreign Ministers’ conference in April
5
6
1947, the Paris conference a year earlier, or perhaps the Berlin blockade in 1948? This
chapter explores why three of the most important and influential members of British Military
Government – the first Military Governor, Field-Marshal Montgomery, his deputy, Brian
Robertson, and one of his senior generals, Alec Bishop – devoted so much time and energy
to rebuilding a country they had so recently destroyed in battle. Based on an examination of
what they aimed to achieve, as stated in contemporary documents such as instructions to
subordinates and articles in the press and in their later memoirs, it would appear that in the
British zone of occupation, the key turning point was none of the above, but the transition
from war to peace from May to September 1945.
7
In the first year of the occupation, the government in London was generally content to leave
internal policy in the British Zone in the hands of the military, who were expected to act in
1
Imperial War Museum (henceforward IWM) Montgomery papers (henceforward BLM and LMD) BLM 85/7, speech
by Montgomery on receiving the Freedom of the City of Antwerp, 7 June 1945
2
For example John Ramsden, Don’t Mention the War: The British and the Germans since 1890 (London: Little
Brown, 2006), chapter 6, ‘Putting poor Germany on its feet again’, pp212-253
3
Ibid, p245
4
John E. Farquharson, ‘From Unity to Division: what prompted Britain to change its policy in Germany in 1946?’
European History Quarterly, Vol.26, 1996, pp81-123
5
Konrad Adenauer, Memoirs 1945-53, translated by Beate Ruhm von Oppen (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
1966), Chapter 6, ‘The Turning Point’, pp89-106
6
Anne Deighton, ‘Cold-War Diplomacy: British Policy Towards Germany’s Role in Europe, 1945-9’ in Ian D. Turner
(ed.), Reconstruction in Post-War Germany: British Occupation Policy and the Western Zones 1945-1955 (Oxford:
Berg Publishers Ltd, 1989), pp15-34
7
This study follows Turner (ed.), Reconstruction in Post-War Germany, p8, and Kramer, The West German
Economy, p223, in arguing that British military government policy and practice were both ‘reconstructionist’ from the
start of the occupation. Different interpretations, based mainly on US sources, of a ‘harsh occupation’ or ‘forced
reorientation’, have been presented in Richard Bessel, Germany 1945: from War to Peace (London, New York,
Sydney, Toronto: Simon & Schuster, 2009), pp392-3 and Konrad H. Jarausch, After Hitler: Recivilizing Germans,
1945-1995 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
34
8
accordance with a set of directives issued by the War Office in October 1944. When the
new Labour government was formed in August 1945, there was uncertainty over which
minister and Civil Service department would be responsible for the internal administration of
the British Zone. This had previously been shared between the Foreign and War Offices.
9
After internal discussions in Whitehall, the new Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, decided that
responsibility should be transferred to a new department, the Control Office for Germany and
Austria (COGA), which would act as the liaison between Military Government in Germany
and Civil Service departments in London.
10
However, at the Foreign Secretary, Ernest
Bevin’s, request, it was agreed that that no formal announcement would be made until after
the Allied Foreign Ministers’ conference in the Autumn.
11
As a result, COGA was not
established and the new minister for Germany, John Hynd, did not take up his post until
October 1945.
12
The embryonic civilian Control Commission for Germany, which had been
established in London in June 1944, transferred to Germany in July and August 1945.
13
It
was gradually integrated with army ‘Civil Affairs’ staff by the end of the year, but
Montgomery’s
three
military
Corps
Commanders
retained
responsibility
for
civil
administration at regional level until civilian Regional Commissioners were appointed in May
1946. For at least the first six months of the occupation, there was therefore no independent
civilian authority established in Germany, and no clear reporting lines from Military
Government back to London.
14
Montgomery and his generals were left to govern an area half the size of the United
Kingdom with a population of over twenty million. The directives issued in October 1944 did
not provide guidance on many of the problems they had to face once victory had been
achieved, such as food and housing shortages, chronically low levels of industrial
production, massive population movements and, above all, the absence of any central
8
Montgomery’s copy is in BLM 165/5. Ingrams’ copy is in his papers at Churchill Archives Centre (henceforward
IGMS) 1/8. Ulrich Reusch, Deutsches Berufsbeamtentum und Britische Besatzung 1943-1947 (Stuttgart: KlettCotta, 1985), p54, described these directives as ‘undoubtedly the most important consolidated version of British
planning for post-war Germany’.
9
Frank Donnison, Civil Affairs and Military Government. Central Organisation and Planning (London: HMSO, 1966),
p110. Responsibility for Germany was transferred from the Foreign Office to the War Office on 1 June 1945, though
both worked on various aspects of planning for the occupation. See Ulrich Reusch, ‘Die Londoner Institutiononen
der britischen Deutschlandpolitik 1943-48. Eine behördengeschichtliche Untersuchung’, Historisches Jahrbuch 100,
(1980), pp374-5
10
FO 371/46973, C5121-2, ‘Prime Minister’s meeting on machinery for Control Commission’
11
Ibid
12
Reusch, ‘Die Londoner Institutionen’
13
Donnison, Civil Affairs, Central Organisation, p109
14
The government started to take a greater interest in internal affairs within the British Zone from late 1945, but this
was at a low level until after Montgomery left Germany on 1 May 1946.
35
German authority. As a result, they adopted procedures they knew and understood from
their experience in the army. The overall direction of policy was determined by Montgomery,
as Military Governor and Commander-in-Chief, in a series of notes, memos and conferences
with his senior staff. Responsibility for translating these into detailed directives and issuing
instructions to subordinates lay with his Chief of Staff and Deputy Military Governor, Brian
Robertson. Implementation was delegated to the army Corps Commanders and various
Control Commission heads of division.
Although some British officers, soldiers and administrators were motivated by a desire to
15
bring the perpetrators of war crimes to justice,
indulge in theft and looting
16
and others took advantage of the situation to
or live a life of luxury,
17
soldiers were expected to obey orders.
The predominant tone, which came from the top, was endorsed by senior officers and
reflected in all the official publications, was that of reconstruction, from the start of the
occupation. The views expressed by Montgomery, Robertson and Bishop described in this
chapter were typical of the most senior ranks of army officers in Germany. These men knew
each other personally, had a strong esprit de corps and often shared experiences, such as
attendance at the army staff college at Camberley, overseas postings in the Empire and, in
the Second World War, service in London as staff officers or under Montgomery’s command
in North Africa, France and Germany.
The similarities in outlook between Montgomery, Robertson and Bishop were greater than
any differences. All were educated in public schools, fought as young men in the First World
War, served in the Empire between the wars and held strong personal religious beliefs. After
a brief outline of the personal background, previous experience and role in Military
government of each, they are treated together in this chapter, as a representative group of
three of the most senior army officers who determined and implemented Military Government
policy in the British Zone.
15
E.g. Anthony Kemp, The Secret Hunters (London: Michael O’Mara Books Limited, 1986)
Donnison, Civil Affairs and Military Government, North-West Europe, p212; Leonard O Mosley, Report from
Germany (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1945), pp45-46
17
Goronwy Rees, Sketches in Autobiography: ‘A Bundle of Sensations’ and ‘A Chapter of Accidents’ with ‘A Winter
in Berlin’, a further autobiographical essay (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2001), edited with introduction and
notes by John Harris, p123. Rees described one Corps Commander living ‘like a renaissance prince’.
16
36
2.1 Classically educated soldiers in the service of the British Empire
‘Let us take as our motto a line written many centuries ago by wise friend Horace:
“Justum et tenacem propositi virum”’
18
(The just man, firm of purpose)
Field-Marshal Bernard Montgomery
19
Field-Marshal Montgomery
Montgomery’s year as Military Governor of Germany is rarely covered in any detail in his
biographies.
20
He was born in 1887 in London, where his father was an Anglican clergyman
and vicar of St Mark’s, Kennington. Two years later, his father was appointed Bishop of
Tasmania and moved there with his family, before returning to London in 1901, to become
secretary of the Christian missionary Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.
18
21
‘The Year of Genesis’, British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.8, 5 Jan. 1946, p1, initialled B.H.R. [Brian Robertson]
Image from Wikipedia Commons [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bernard_Law_Montgomery.jpg
accessed 20 Aug. 2012]
20
Nigel Hamilton covered Montgomery’s year in Germany in his 3 volume official biography, but made no reference
to it in his DNB entry. Alan Moorehead, Montgomery (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1946), Alun Chalfont, Montgomery
of Alamein (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1976) and Colin Baxter, Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery
1887-1976: A Selected Bibliography (Westport, Connecticut, London, Greenwood Press, 1999) refer to it briefly.
21
Bishop Montgomery: a memoir, (London: The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 1933)
[http://anglicanhistory.org/england/hhmontgomery1933/ accessed 22 Aug. 2012]
19
37
On his return from Tasmania, aged 14, the future Field-Marshal went to St Paul’s School in
London, and spent his summer holidays at the family estate in Ireland. On leaving school, he
entered the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst and was commissioned as an officer in
1908. After serving in India, he fought in the First World War and was wounded in France.
22
He commanded a battalion in the British Army of the Rhine during the first British occupation
of Germany and after a chance meeting with the commander, Sir William Robertson, was
successful in gaining entrance to the Staff College at Camberley in 1920.
23
He was stationed
in Ireland during the fighting which led to the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1923. In
1926 he was appointed as an instructor at the Staff College and subsequently served in
Egypt, India and Palestine, being promoted to Major-General in 1938.
24
At the outbreak of the Second World War, he was sent to France in command of a division of
the British Expeditionary Force and took part in the retreat and evacuation at Dunkirk.
Goronwy Rees, who acted as his liaison officer in 1941, later described him as having ‘an air
… of extraordinary quietness and calm’, more like a priest than a general.
25
In 1942 he was
th
transferred to North Africa to command the 8 Army. After successfully holding the position
at El Alamein, he counter-attacked in October 1942 and broke through the enemy lines. This
was the first decisive Allied victory and considered by many in Britain to be the turning point
in the war. It was followed by the retreat and evacuation of German forces from North Africa
and the invasion of Italy in 1943. Montgomery returned to Britain and acted as Commanderin-Chief of all Allied ground forces, over two million British, US, Canadian and other troops,
during Operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy. Owing to the growing preponderance
of American forces, he was replaced by General Eisenhower at the end of the campaign, but
st
continued to command the Allied 21 Army Group in its advance through France, Belgium,
and the Netherlands and across the Rhine into Germany. On 4 May 1945 he accepted the
22
Nigel Hamilton, ‘Montgomery, Bernard Law [Monty], first Viscount Montgomery of Alamein (1887–1976)’, Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2008 [http://0www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/31460 accessed 22 August 2012] (henceforward
Hamilton, ‘Montgomery’, DNB)
23
Hamilton, ‘Montgomery’, DNB. Field-Marshal Sir William Robertson was the father of Brian Robertson. According
to his memoirs, Montgomery entered the staff college in 1921 after failing to gain a place 1919 and 1920.
24
Hamilton, ‘Montgomery’, DNB
25
Goronwy Rees: Sketches in Autobiography: ‘A Bundle of Sensations’ and ‘A Chapter of Accidents’ with ‘A Winter
in Berlin’, a further autobiographical essay (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2001), edited with introduction and
notes by John Harris. A Bundle of Sensations was first published by Chatto & Windus, London, 1960 and two
extracts were serialised in The Sunday Times on 22 and 29 May 1960 as ‘Monty’ and the ‘Drama of Dieppe’.
According to John Harris: ‘Reviewers of A Bundle of Sensations were much taken by Rees’ pages on Monty and
Nigel Hamilton agrees: “Anyone who ever served or worked with Montgomery will testify to the accuracy of this
portrait.”’
38
unconditional surrender of all German forces in North-West Europe, shortly before the formal
German surrender in Reims and Berlin on 8 and 9 May.
26
He was appointed Military Governor of the British Zone of Germany and British member of
the Allied Control Council on 22 May.
27
A year later, on 1 May 1946, he returned to England
to take up the position of Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS). In later years he was
part of the command structure for the Western European Union and NATO before retiring in
1958. In the same year he published his memoirs, which aroused considerable controversy,
due to his criticism of other Allied commanders, including General Eisenhower. His military
record has remained controversial, although he attracted tremendous loyalty from those who
served under him and was often greeted by cheering crowds in the streets of Britain in the
years immediately after the end of the war.
28
He was created Viscount Montgomery of
Alamein in the 1946 New Year Honours and died in 1976, aged 88.
26
29
Hamilton, ‘Montgomery’, DNB
BLM 85, ‘Notes on the Occupation of Germany’, Part 1
28
Hamilton, ‘Montgomery’, DNB; Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Horrocks, A Full Life (London: Leo Cooper 1974)
revised and extended edition, p284. First published by William Collins, 1960
29
Hamilton, ‘Montgomery’, DNB
27
39
Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Robertson
Portrait of General Robertson at the time of the Berlin Airlift
30
Brian Robertson was born in 1896 at Simla in India. His father, Sir William Robertson, had a
distinguished military career and was the only British soldier to rise from the ranks to fieldmarshal, the most senior position in the army. In 1915 his father was appointed Chief of the
Imperial General Staff (CIGS), a position he held until 1918. From 1919-1920 he was
Commander-in-Chief of the British Army of the Rhine, during the occupation of the Rhineland
31
after the First World War.
The family was not wealthy and, with no private means, Brian Robertson had to work hard to
win a scholarship to Charterhouse.
32
He was reasonably content at school,
33
unlike his fellow
pupil, the author and classical scholar Robert Graves, who wrote about his experiences in
scathing terms in his autobiography Goodbye to all That.
30
34
At least one in three of their
Photograph from CAC, Albu papers, box 4, booklet prepared by the City of Berlin for presentation to Allied officers
and men who took part in the Air Lift, p5
31
Victor Bonham-Carter, Soldier True: the Life and Times of Field-Marshal Sir William Robertson (London:
Frederick Muller Limited, 1963)
32
David Williamson, A Most Diplomatic General: The life of General Lord Robertson of Oakridge (London,
Washington: Brasseys, 1996), p4
33
Williamson, A Most Diplomatic General, p6. Robertson sent his son to Charterhouse in 1943.
34
Robert Graves, Goodbye to All That (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1960), p53. First published by Jonathan
Cape 1929
40
generation at school died during the war.
35
In 1913 Robertson entered the Royal Military
Academy at Woolwich. At the outbreak of the First World War he was commissioned in the
Royal Engineers but, owing to the influence of his father, did not fight at the front and had a
relatively easy time as a staff officer and ADC, firstly to his father and subsequently to
Generals Haig and Haking. After the war he spent five years in India, from 1920-25, and in
1926 gained a place at the Staff College in Camberley, where two of his fellow-students
were the future generals Harold Alexander and Alec Bishop; Montgomery was one of the
instructors. In 1928 he was appointed as an intelligence officer at the War Office and in
1932-3 was a member of the British delegation at the disarmament talks at Geneva.
36
In
1933 his father died and, uncertain of his future prospects in the army, he accepted a
position in business with Dunlop and, a year later, moved to South Africa to manage a new
tyre factory.
37
When the Second World War broke out, he campaigned for South African support for the
British war effort and volunteered to re-enlist. He served in the East African campaign and in
th
May 1942 was appointed Quartermaster General for the 8 Army, during the retreat from
Tobruk to El Alamein. He wrote to his wife in November, after the victory at the second battle
of El Alamein, of the change he experienced when Montgomery was appointed Commanderin-Chief:
What gave me confidence, more than anything else was Monty’s attitudes and methods. To
watch him on his job is like watching a test match played after watching just good club
38
performance.
After the invasion of Italy in 1943 he was appointed Chief Administrative Officer to the
Commander-in-Chief, General Alexander.
39
He was in Italy in July 1945, when he received
an urgent summons to take over the position of Deputy Military Governor and Chief of Staff
for Montgomery in Germany.
40
When Montgomery left Germany in May 1946, Robertson
continued as deputy to his successor, Sholto Douglas, and when Douglas resigned in
35
Ibid, p54
Williamson, A Most Diplomatic General
37
Williamson, A Most Diplomatic General, p27; ‘Profile General Robertson’, The Observer, 8 Dec. 1946
38
Williamson, A Most Diplomatic General, pp33-4, p46
39
Charles Richardson, ‘Robertson, Brian Hubert, first Baron Robertson of Oakridge (1896–1974)’, rev. Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2006
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/31616, accessed 7 Aug 2009]
40
Theodore A. Wilson, Interview with General Lord Robertson of Oakridge, (Harry S. Truman Library & Museum),
11 Aug. 1970 [www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/robertsn.htm accessed 7 August 2009], (henceforward Robertson,
Truman presidential library interview)
36
41
November 1947, he was appointed Military Governor. Following the establishment of an
independent elected government in West Germany in September 1949, he became the first
British High Commissioner to the Federal Republic.
41
He left Germany in June 1950 for a position as Commander-in-Chief Middle East land
forces. He was disappointed not to follow in the footsteps of his father, when he was
considered but not selected as Chief of the Imperial General Staff in 1953
42
and once again
left the army for business, to become head of the British Transport Commission, a position
he held until 1961. He died in 1974, aged 77.
43
After Montgomery left Germany in May 1946, Robertson was the most influential soldier and
administrator in the British Zone, chairing committee meetings, issuing instructions and
directives, and acting as the spokesman for Military Government at press conferences.
was a shy and private man, who often appeared reserved and aloof,
45
44
He
though it is clear from
the official papers that he had a tremendous capacity for work. He described his role, in a
brief he wrote in 1946 for the newly appointed civilian Regional Commissioners, as
equivalent to the ‘Prime Minister’ of the Zone.
with Ernest Bevin,
47
46
He developed a strong working relationship
the British Foreign Secretary, and with Konrad Adenauer, the first
48
Chancellor of the German Federal Republic, who paid a tribute to him in his memoirs.
As
an administrator, rather than commander, he would appear to have seen his primary
responsibility as implementing policy agreed by others. However, as he said many years
later in an interview for the Truman Presidential Library, when comparing himself to his US
counterpart, Lucius D. Clay:
General Clay was a very powerful character. He was highly thought of in his own country …
I am not such a strong character, perhaps, but maybe I have a way of getting my own way.
However it may be, it is certain that policy in Germany, in fact, emanated very largely from
General Clay and myself.
49
41
Richardson, ‘Robertson’, DNB
Williamson, A Most Diplomatic General, pp167-8
Richardson, ‘Robertson’, DNB
44
A ‘Profile’ of Robertson in The Observer, 8 Dec. 1946, stated that: ‘There is no doubt that Robertson is the most
powerful man in the British Control Commission.’
45
Richardson, ‘Robertson’, DNB; Williamson, A Most Diplomatic General, p84
46
FO 1030/308, paper on ‘The Functions of Regional Commissioners’, p1, enclosed with a letter from Robertson to
the military commanders of the five regions in the British Zone, 29 April 1946
47
Bishop, Look back with Pleasure, p105
48
Adenauer, Memoirs, p274
49
Robertson, Truman presidential library interview
42
43
42
Perhaps reflecting the classical training he received at Charterhouse,
50
he ended the second
of two articles he wrote in early issues of the British Zone Review, the official journal of
Military Government, by quoting a Latin verse by Horace, Justum et tenacem propositi virum
(The just man, firm of purpose), adding that if his readers knew the poem and were still able
to translate it, they would ‘find that Horace wrote that Ode specially for the Control
Commission in Germany.’
51
Two years later, at a press conference for journalists in 1947, he
quoted the same line again, adding:
If you want to know what I think should be our attitude in Germany then I recommend to you
to read those lines yourselves.
52
His reference to a Latin verse, which he had probably learnt at school, suggests he was a
man of firm principles, who believed they were self-evident to those who shared his
background and education and there was no need to express them explicitly. In the twentyfirst century, when very few civil servants, army officers, academics or journalists have
studied Latin, or share his outlook on life as a classically educated army officer, what he
assumed was obvious to all may not be so evident. His role and that of his colleagues
deserve further historical investigation.
50
Graves, Goodbye to all That, p37, quoted a friend saying, in their final year at school: ‘Do you realize that we
have spent fourteen years of our lives principally at Latin and Greek?’
51
British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.8, 5 Jan. 1946, p2. The full quotation from Horace is: Justum et tenacem propositi
virum / Non civium ardor prava iubentium / Non vultus instantis tyranni / Mente quatit solida, ‘The just man, firm of
purpose cannot be shaken in his rocklike soul, by the heat of fellow citizens clamouring for what is wrong, nor by the
presence of a threatening tyrant’ (my translation).
52
IWM, Bishop papers, (henceforward AB), AB12
43
Major-General Sir Alec Bishop
Alexander Bishop, by Walter Stoneman, 1945 © National Portrait Gallery
Alec Bishop was born in 1897 in a small village near Plymouth, Devon. In his unpublished
autobiography, he wrote that his father had not served in the army, but ‘most of my forbears
on my Mother’s side had been soldiers’ dating back to the ‘Parliamentary Wars of the
seventeenth century’ and it was assumed that he too ‘would follow the profession of arms.’
53
He went to school at Plymouth College and in the Autumn of 1914 gained a scholarship to
Sandhurst. Two years later he was sent to Mesopotamia, in charge of a draft of 500 men. In
January 1917 he took part in the offensive which was to lead to the capture of Baghdad on
17 March. He was lightly wounded in action after an engagement in which his senior officer
was killed and he took over command. After three weeks in hospital he re-joined his
regiment and again took over command of the company. He was still only 19 years old.
54
After the war he spent six years in India, where ‘The big game shooting was first class, and
included tiger, bison, wild boar, sambhur, cheetah and spotted deer…. Life was very
53
54
AB1, Alec Bishop, Look Back with Pleasure, (Beckley, Sussex: unpublished, 1971), p3
Ibid, pp14-15
44
pleasant in those days for young officers serving in India. We were in fact a very privileged
body of young men.’
55
He returned to England in 1925 and after a brief move to Yorkshire at
the time of the General Strike, in case of ‘an emergency’ in the coalfields,
the Staff College at Camberley in 1926.
56
gained a place at
57
In 1931 he joined the Colonial Office in London and travelled extensively in Africa on tours of
inspection of the Colonial Forces. At the outbreak of the Second World War he was in
Tanganyika, where he organised the arrest of German settlers, in response to concerns that
they would ‘form themselves into commandos and take to the bush.’
58
He spent the rest of
the war in various positions in Africa and as a staff officer at the War Office in London where
he was appointed Director of Quartering in 1944, with the rank of Major-General.
59
For the
last three months of the war, he was Deputy Director of the Political Warfare Executive,
(PWE), deputising for the director, Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart, who was ill at the time.
Presumably this led to him taking charge of Information Services in Germany. Apparently he
had no choice in the matter, as his appointment was negotiated between Bruce Lockhart and
Sir William Strang, political adviser to Montgomery.
60
Bishop moved to Germany in June
1945, one month after the end of the war. After a year as Head of Information Services and
Public Relations, he was appointed Deputy Chief of Staff to Robertson and two years later
Regional Commissioner for North Rhine-Westphalia.
Although not as senior or influential as Montgomery or Robertson, Bishop’s career is
interesting and relevant for a study of British aims in occupied Germany. In the first year after
the end of the war he had overall responsibility for communicating the work done by British
Military Government internally to its own staff, and externally to those at home in Britain and
to the local German population. In addition, unlike many other senior officers, he served in
Germany for an extended period of five and a half years and his work spanned three
important areas of administration: public relations and information services; general policy;
55
Ibid, p30
Ibid, p31. Bishop’s use of the term ‘emergency’ when referring to the General Strike of 1926 is significant, as the
same term is often used as a euphemism for a colonial insurrection, e.g. ‘Malayan Emergency’, ‘Aden Emergency’.
57
Ibid, p32
58
Ibid, p59
59
Who’s Who 1983, (London: A&C Black, 1983), p198
60
Bishop, Look Back with Pleasure, p88
56
45
and the administration of North Rhine-Westphalia, the largest and most industrialised Land,
61
or region, in the Zone.
Bishop left Germany on New Year’s Eve 1950 to take up a position as Assistant Secretary at
the Commonwealth Relations Office. From 1957-62 he was the British Deputy High
Commissioner in Calcutta. After another brief period at the Commonwealth Relations Office,
he was appointed High Commissioner for Cyprus in 1964, but had to retire due to ill-health a
year later. He died in 1984.
62
2.2 ‘Almost overnight’: The transition from war to peace
'The British forces, which had hitherto been locked in mortal combat with their
German opponents, turned almost overnight the whole of their energies, strength and
enthusiasm into the physical reconstruction of the country, in which they were serving.’
63
In his memoirs, Montgomery described the situation in Germany following the unconditional
surrender on 8 May 1945:
The immediate problem that now faced us was terrific. We had in our area nearly one and a
half million German prisoners of war. There were a further one million German wounded,
without medical supplies, and in particular with a shortage of bandages and no
anaesthetics. In addition, there were about one million civilian refugees who had fled into
our area from the advancing Russians; these and ‘Displaced Persons’ were roaming about
the country, often looting as they went. Transportation and communication services had
ceased to function. Agriculture and industry were largely at a standstill. Food was scarce
and there was a serious risk of famine and disease during the coming months. And to
crown it all there was no central government in being, and the machinery whereby a central
government could function no longer existed.
Here was a pretty pickle.
I was a soldier and I had not been trained to handle anything of this nature.
However, something had to be done, and done quickly.
61
64
The German terms Land and its plural Länder refer to the self-governing regions in Germany, formed by the Allies
from the Prussian provinces and former (pre-1871) independent states, which together comprise the Federal
Republic of Germany.
62
IWM catalogue entry for the papers of Major-General Sir Alec Bishop.
63
AB3, handwritten draft of speech by Bishop at the Anglo-German Association dinner, 2 Nov. 1954
64
Montgomery, Memoirs, p345
46
He flew to London on 14 May to meet the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, and argue the
case for urgent action. Though he was frustrated by delays, his appointment as Military
Governor and Commander in Chief of the British armed forces in Germany was confirmed on
22 May.
65
The next day he addressed Control Commission staff in London and said:
‘Between us we have to re-establish civil control, and to govern, a country which we have
conquered and which has become sadly battered in the process.’ His official biographer,
Nigel Hamilton, commented that: ‘Monty’s sympathy with the plight of Germany came as a
shock to those in the auditorium who pictured him as a ruthless, Cromwellian commander,
until two weeks ago waging implacable war upon the Nazis.’
66
Montgomery’s memoirs and similar accounts by Robertson, Bishop and other generals such
as Brian Horrocks, of a rapid change in policy, ‘almost overnight’,
67
may have reflected
prevailing attitudes in the 1950s and 1960s at the height of the Cold War, but the change can
also be traced in contemporary documents, such as a series of Information Control policy
directives issued by British Army Headquarters in Germany. Directive no. 1, dated 12 May
1945, a few days after VE Day, adopted a harsh tone, instructing staff to emphasise issues
such as: ‘The completeness of Germany’s defeat in the field … The common responsibility of
all Germans for Nazi crimes’ and ‘The power and determination of the Allies to enforce their
will.’
68
In this respect the directive was similar to orders issued before the end of the war,
such as Montgomery’s first message on non-fraternization, in March 1945, instructing British
troops to ‘keep clear of Germans, man, woman, and child’ and not to:
walk out with them, or shake hands, or visit their homes, or make them gifts, or take gifts
from them. You must not play games with them or share any social event with them. In
short you must not fraternise with Germans at all.
69
There was no change in the second directive, but the third, issued only two weeks later, on
27 May, stated that whilst earlier themes remained valid, ‘the emphasis should now be
shifted to more positive aims’:
65
BLM 85, ‘Notes on the Occupation of Germany’, Part 1
Nigel Hamilton, Monty: The Field-Marshal 1944-1976 (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1986), p541
67
Robertson, Truman presidential library interview; AB3, speech by Bishop at the Anglo-German Association
dinner, 2 Nov. 1954; Horrocks, A Full Life, p268. Horrocks was one of Montgomery’s three Corps Commanders.
68
FO 1005/739, ‘Infm Control Policy Directive No. 1’, 12 May 1945
69
BLM 85/10
66
47
The immediate need, from both Allied and German points of view, is for a supreme effort by
the Germans at all forms of reconstruction work … Use every opportunity that honest
reporting allows to emphasise with good space and prominence reconstruction activities by
both the Allies and the Germans.
70
Montgomery returned to Germany as Military Governor on 26 May, the day before the third
directive was issued. Although there is no specific evidence in the file, it is likely that the
change reflected new instructions from above, ultimately emanating from him. The fourth
directive, issued on 8 June, stated that the ‘predominantly negative attitude’ specified in the
first directive was now superseded.
71
Subsequent directives and memos, such as
Montgomery’s three ‘Notes on the present situation’
German people,
73
72
and his third ‘personal message’ to the
all emphasised the need for a new policy of reconstruction and of giving
the Germans ‘hope for the future.’
74
‘You have to see it to believe it’
In common with many of their colleagues, Montgomery, Robertson and Bishop were
surprised and shocked at the extent of the physical destruction of Germany. Numerous
published accounts, by British soldiers, administrators, diplomats and journalists, included
descriptions of the devastation they saw when they first arrived in Germany, looking out of
aeroplane or train windows, or driving through the streets of one of the cities.
Templer,
76
75
General
for example, described his first impressions of ‘The Early Days’, in an article in
the British Zone Review in November 1945.
Military Government was met by chaos. A team of four officers and six other ranks would be
confronted by an area of many square miles. There was no local authority whatever with
whom to deal. Devastation was often on a prodigious scale. There were no
communications, no power. Fields were deserted. Crops and cattle had been left
70
FO 1005/739, ‘Infm Control Policy Directive No. 3’, 27 May 1945
FO 1005/739, ‘Infm Control Policy Directive No. 4’, 8 June 1945
72
BLM 85/15
73
BLM 85/4, LMD 143/6-7
74
FO 1005/739, ‘Infm Control Policy Directive No. 9’, 18 July 1945, restated instructions given a few days earlier
that: ‘Attitude of all output should now be more positive. Every fact should be emphasised which may inspire hope
for the future in Germany.’
75
Many contemporary accounts by British observers referred to their first impressions of devastation, including
those listed in the bibliography by Alec Cairncross, George Clare, Yvone Kirkpatrick, Fenner Brockway, Noel Annan,
William Strang, Ethel Mannin, and Lieutenant-Colonel Byford-Jones. See also ‘Passing Comment’, British Zone
Review, Vol. 1, No. 20, 22 June 1946, p1.
John Gimbel, The American Occupation of Germany: Politics and the Military, 1945-1949 (Stanford, California:
Stanford University Press, 1968), p6, quoted similar accounts by US observers including President Truman, General
Clay and journalists Walter Millis and Joseph Barnes.
76
Director of Civil Affairs for 21st Army Group and later Deputy Chief of Staff to Montgomery, responsible for internal
administration of the British Zone in the first year of the occupation.
71
48
unattended. Half the population had been evacuated eastwards. Those that remained were
stunned and cowed. Everything was at a standstill.
77
Bishop described his first impressions in similar terms in his memoirs:
It is very difficult for anyone who did not see the situation in Germany when the war came to
an end to realise what it was like. The first impression was of the appalling destruction
which had been caused by the Allies’ bombing. Very few towns had escaped wide-spread
destruction. In some of the Ruhr towns such as Duisburg, over eighty per cent of the
buildings had been reduced to rubble, under which lay the bodies of thousands of
78
casualties.
The majority of senior officers were completely unprepared for their new role as civil
administrators of a defeated enemy country. Bishop had no choice in his selection as Head
of Public Relations and Information Services Control. Robertson described his recall from
Italy, when his predecessor as Montgomery’s deputy in Germany, General Weeks, retired
due to ill-health after only two months in post:
I was suddenly sent for. I was told to take over this job, and I went to Germany the next
day. I didn’t speak a word of German; I’d never been in the country before. I had been in
South Africa for half a dozen years or more. I knew nothing about the situation at all,
nothing, nor had I taken any part of the great preparatory work that had been carried
forward in London.
79
If the generals felt unprepared for their new roles, they nevertheless believed they knew
more than the politicians. In 1965, in a speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs,
Robertson told the audience that, at the end of the war, Churchill, Roosevelt and other
politicians in Britain and the United States had ‘an entirely false picture in their minds as to
what the situation would be in Germany, and they were aiming at a completely wrong
objective.’
80
The ‘misconception in the mind of President Franklin Roosevelt’, he believed,
‘dominated American thought and action during the first two, very important years following
the German collapse.’
The ‘Grand Design’ of President Roosevelt for the future peace of the world was based
upon a United Nations dominated by an American-Russian partnership, and this probably to
77
‘The Early Days’, British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.4, November 1945, p1, initialled G.W.R.T.
Bishop, Look Back with Pleasure, p88
79
Robertson, Truman presidential library interview; see also TNA WO 258/83
80
Brian Robertson, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, ‘A Miracle? Potsdam 1945 – Western Germany 1965’, International
Affairs, Vol.41, No.3, (1965), pp401-410
78
49
the exclusion of close friendship with Great Britain. With this concept went a stern policy
towards Germany.
81
British attitudes, Robertson continued, were different. When he arrived in Germany in July
1945, he found the ‘men on the spot’ including Montgomery and Templer, ‘had their minds
on other things’:
Very soon I could see that the assumptions on which our policy had been based were false,
and that the objectives chosen were quite irrelevant. The real menace for the future of
Europe and to world peace was not Germany, but Russia. The immediate objective was not
to batter Germany down – she was sprawling in the dust already – but to build her up and
to do so wisely. We had to save Germany physically from starvation, squalor and penury,
spiritually from despair and Communism.
82
Twenty years earlier, in October 1945, in an article for the British Zone Review, he had
expressed a slightly different perspective.
83
Rather than referring to a threat from Russia and
Communism, he justified a policy of reconstruction on the need for reform within Germany.
He acknowledged the need for disarmament and de-nazification, but considered these
‘relatively straightforward’ and already largely completed following unconditional surrender
and military occupation. He told his colleagues in Military Government that they now needed
to focus on the more positive aspects of their work, which he believed was not just a matter
of physical or economic reconstruction, but more like educating a child.
84
Bishop made a
similar point in an article in the British Zone Review in January 1946 on ‘Re-educating
Germany’, emphasising the scale of the task, but concluding with the view that it was difficult
but not impossible to achieve as: ‘During the war years we have learnt that nothing is
impossible, though perhaps an “impossible task” may take a little longer to accomplish.’
85
In summary, Montgomery, Robertson and Bishop, three of the most influential men in the
British Zone of occupied Germany, were career officers, with little if any experience of civilian
administration, no knowledge of the German language, culture or society, had played no part
in British post-war planning and preparation for the occupation and felt unprepared for the
job they were expected to perform. Nevertheless, their first impressions, when they arrived in
81
Ibid
Ibid
83
‘Quo Vadis?’ British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.3, 27 Oct. 1946, p1, initialled B.H.R.
84
Ibid
85
‘Re-educating Germany’, British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.6, 8 Dec. 1945, pp3-4, initialled W.H.A.B.
82
50
Germany, of a devastated country and a demoralised people, led them to conclude that the
politicians at home knew even less than they did. They were in no doubt of the need for
complete disarmament and denazification as agreed at the Potsdam conference, but they
also assumed it was part of their duty and personal responsibility to rehabilitate Germany
and, great as the task was, they believed they knew, or could learn, what had to be done to
achieve this.
‘First things first’
The unquestioned assumption of all three men, Montgomery, Robertson and Bishop, was
that their most urgent tasks in Germany were to restore law and order, prevent starvation,
guard against the spread of disease, find shelter for the homeless, keep young people off the
streets and start to rebuild the economy.
Montgomery, as Commander-in-Chief and Military Governor, had no confidence in the ability
of the civilian Control Commission to deal with the problems on the ground, as they were
based in London until July and August, and ‘out of touch with the immediate realities of the
situation.’
86
He therefore decided to make use of the army and treat the work that needed to
be done as if it were a military operation.
87
The battles he and his troops had fought to win
the war were followed by another to win the peace, which he called ‘The Battle of the
Winter’, the objectives of which were not to repel enemy attack or win territory, but to provide
88
‘food, work and homes.’
Operations ‘Overlord’ (the invasion of Normandy), ‘Market Garden’
(the attack on Arnhem described in the film ‘A Bridge too Far’) and ‘Plunder’ (the final assault
across the German border to the Rhine) were followed, after the end of the war, by
Operations ‘Barleycorn’ (the release of captured German POWs to work on the land and
help bring in the harvest), ‘Coalscuttle’ (a further release of POWs to work in the coalmines
of the Ruhr) and ‘Stork’ (the evacuation of young children from the British Zone in Berlin).
89
The role of British Military Government was described by Robertson in his first article in the
British Zone Review as similar to that of a policeman taking control at the scene of an
86
BLM 86, ‘Notes on the Occupation of Germany’, part 2, p8
Ibid
BLM 85/15, ‘Notes on the Present Situation’, 6 July 1945; British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.1, p2
89
British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.1, 29 Sept. 1945, p13; Vol.1, No.4, 10 Nov. 1945, p7
87
88
51
accident. He told the story of a horse and cart careering down a street, overturning and
causing chaos, when:
Into this crowd came a British Military Policeman who immediately took charge of the
situation. He was not an expert in horses and carts, but he saw very clearly that certain
essential things were to be done.
This is a simple story. We have all seen things like this happen. It has a moral for us. The
German apple-cart has been upset, the madmen who were in charge of it are dead or in
prison, the German people lies bleeding and helpless. We represent the policeman
destined to take charge of the proceedings.
90
In a second article, published in January 1946, he wrote in similar terms of the need for
improvisation and the application of common sense, in unexpected conditions:
The directives were not many, and much was left to the initiative of individuals … The
detachments entered into a land of desolation and bewilderment. Government above the
level of the parish council had ceased. Everything was in disorder; people were stunned
and helpless…. ‘First things first’ was the motto when Military Government first raised its
91
sign in Germany…
Initial concerns that they might have to deal with resistance from units of the German army
who refused to surrender, die-hard Nazis or German nationalists, turned out to be completely
unfounded. Montgomery reported in a memorandum to Sir Arthur Street, Permanent
Secretary of the Control Office in London, that: ‘The British Zone has remained quiet. So far
scarcely a spark has occurred. I do not think we shall have any trouble with the Germans this
winter; they are fully occupied with their own immediate troubles.’
92
According to contemporary accounts, crime committed by Displaced Persons, or ‘DPs’, as
the millions of liberated slave workers in Nazi Germany, were known, was a greater problem
than resistance from Germans.
93
There was considerable sympathy among British officers
for DPs as victims of the Nazi regime, but their priority was the enforcement of law and
order, not humanitarian concerns, and crimes had to be punished, whoever committed them.
90
‘Quo Vadis?’ British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.3, 27 Oct. 1946, p1
‘The Year of Genesis’, British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.8, 5 Jan. 1946, p1
92
BLM 87/23, memorandum to the Permanent Secretary, COGA, 19 Dec. 1945
93
This study discusses the issue from the point of view of the British Military authorities. Visiting British journalists
described the issue in similar terms, e.g. Leonard O Mosley, Report from Germany (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd,
1945), p57, p78. From the point of view of the Displaced Persons the situation appeared quite different. See, for
example, Wolfgang Jacobmeyer, ‘The Displaced Persons Problem: Repatriation and Resettlement’ in JohannesDieter Steinert and Inge Weber-Newth (eds.), European Immigrants in Britain 1933-1950, (Munich: K.G. Saur,
2003), pp137-149.
91
52
Bishop expressed this ambivalence in his memoirs: ‘We all felt great sympathy for these
unfortunate people who had suffered so much … Many were well educated and responsible,
others were unruly and lawless.’
94
In an address to the Newspaper Society in October 1945,
Montgomery made it clear that, whatever their personal sympathies, murder, rape, looting
and the illegal possession of firearms would not be tolerated.
95
In a conference for Corps
Commanders in August, he had been more explicit, giving instructions that:
Present looting and murder by Poles and Russian DPs must be stopped by ruthless means.
Soldiers must shoot to kill.
96
The German police, forbidden to carry firearms after the end of the war, were unable to
prevent crime by armed DPs. British junior officers on the front line, responsible for enforcing
law and order, soon found their sympathies lay increasingly with the local German population
97
and came to share the Germans’ perception of DPs as lawless troublemakers.
Food: ‘A Buchenwald in Germany’
In a telegram to Montgomery sent on 5 June 1945, the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill,
wrote that:
I am alarmed by the winter prospect in Germany. I expect they will do everything you tell
them and hold you responsible that they are fed. I wonder myself whether anything but
German responsibility can secure the full German effort. It would NOT be thought a good
ending to the war if you had a Buchenwald in Germany this winter with millions instead of
98
thousands dying.
With hindsight, we know that Churchill’s understanding of the numbers was wrong. Millions
of people rather than thousands died in the Holocaust, and thousands, rather than millions,
died of starvation and disease in the British Zone after the end of the war. However, at the
time, famine and mass deaths from starvation in Germany and Europe, as had occurred
94
Bishop, Look Back with Pleasure, pp125-7
BLM 86/18, Address to the Newspaper Society, 2 Oct. 1945
96
BLM 86/3, ‘Notes of Corps Commanders Conference’, 2 Aug. 1945
97
M.E. Pelly and H.J. Yasamee (eds.) assisted by G.Bennett, Documents on British Policy Overseas, Series 1,
Volume 5, Germany and Western Europe, 11 August - 31 December 1945 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office,
1990), pp44-5, Memo from Strang to Harvey, 16 August 1945, including report by Noel Annan on Displaced
Persons. See chapter 7 below, pp234ff, for further discussion of junior officers’ attitudes to DPs.
98
BLM 164/2, copy of telegram from Churchill to Montgomery, undated. Montgomery’s reply was sent on 5 June
1945
95
53
during and after the First World War,
99
seemed a very real possibility. Before he left London
in March 1945, General Templer was told by P.J. Grigg, Secretary of State for War, that:
You must resign yourself to the fact that two million are going to die of hunger in Europe
this spring. You and the Army must do all you can to mitigate it, but you won’t be able to
100
cure it.
For three years after the end of the war, food rations in the British Zone for the so-called
‘normal consumer’ varied between around 1,000 and 1,500 calories per day, well below the
League of Nations’ estimate of 2,000 calories as the minimum required to support a working
adult. In comparison, the normal British ration at the time was around 2,800 calories.
101
For the first three years of the occupation, food was the single most important issue for the
British authorities.
102
At its simplest, their policy could be reduced to the question of what
actions had to be taken to prevent starvation. Economic reconstruction could not proceed
unless the workers were adequately fed; attempts at democratic political and social reform
were pointless if all people could think about was their next meal. For example, a cut in
rations in early 1946 resulted in an immediate reduction in coal production from 181,000 to
160,000 tons per day.
103
Absenteeism was high as workers took time off on ‘hamster’ visits
to the countryside to try to find food for themselves and their families.
104
During the cold
winter of 1946-7 the entire economy ground to a halt and factories, such as the Volkswagen
works, ceased production for 3 months.
105
A series of short term measures alleviated the problem without solving it: the use of Allied
stocks of food held in reserve following the invasion in 1944, the diversion of supplies from
the US, the reduction of stocks of wheat held in Britain and attempts to increase production
within the British Zone. The fundamental problem was that food production within the
Western Zones, and the British Zone in particular, was not sufficient to feed the population,
99
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/spotlights/blockade.htm accessed 10 April 2013
Donnison, Civil Affairs, North-West Europe, pxiii. Also quoted in John Cloake, Templer: Tiger of Malaya: The Life
of Field Marshal Sir Gerald Templer (London: Harrap, 1985), p149
101
Kramer, The West German Economy, pp74-6
102
Günter J. Trittel, Hunger und Politik: Die Ernährungskrise in der Bizone (1945-1949), (Frankfurt & New York:
Campus Verlag, 1990); John E. Farquharson, The Western Allies and the Politics of Food, Agrarian Management in
Postwar Germany (Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd, 1985); Michael Wildt, Der Traum vom Sattwerden; Hunger und
Protest, Schwarzmarkt und Selbsthilfe in Hamburg 1945-1948 (Hamburg: VSA Verlag, 1986)
103
Kramer, The West German Economy, p81, p97. See also FO 1030/303, memo from Robertson to Street, 26
March 1946, headed ‘Coal’.
104
‘Less Food, Less Coal’, British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.15, 13 April 1946, p1
105
Ian Turner, ‘Das Volkswagenwerk – ein deutsches Unternehmen unter britische Kontrolle’ in Josef Foschepoth &
Rolf Steininger (eds.), Britische Deutschland- und Besatzungspolitik (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1985), p299
100
54
and until, and unless, industry revived, there was no revenue from exports to pay for food
imports. The British Government was therefore faced with the choice of reducing rations
further, paying for food imports with scarce foreign currency or, as eventually happened but
not until 1948, persuading the US to assume financial responsibility for maintaining the
British as well as their own Zone.
106
During this period, but especially in the eight months from October 1945 to May 1946,
Montgomery and Robertson fought a continual battle with government ministers in London to
maintain supplies of food above what they considered to be starvation level. In October 1945
Robertson sent an urgent request for additional wheat allocations to the War Office. The
existing 1,550 calorie ration was already inadequate, he wrote, as ‘2,000 calories is the
minimum ration to prevent disease and unrest.’ Only 27,000 tons per week were available
from the German harvest against a requirement of 61,500 tons.
107
On 24 October
Montgomery met Bevin during a visit to London. On his return to Germany, he restated his
position in a telegram, saying that he had learned that the government were considering
delaying further supplies. The ‘already inadequate’ ration of 1,550 calories would have to be
reduced by 40% and this, he continued, would mean ‘famine conditions to an extent which
no civilized people should inflict upon their beaten enemies.’
108
On 26 February the following year, the matter had still not been resolved. Montgomery wrote
to John Hynd, the minister responsible for Germany in London, to say he would have to cut
the ration, with dire consequences:
I have just returned from Switzerland and am utterly shocked by the latest telegrams from
the Control Office regarding food supplies to the British Zone….
I have therefore ordered an immediate reduction of the ration by 33 1/3% for the normal
consumer. This means a ration of 1000 calories for the normal consumer which is well
below the hunger mark….
In my opinion we must immediately have substantial imports of wheat or equivalent for
Germany. If we do not do so we shall produce death and misery to an extent which will
106
Farquharson, The Western Allies and the Politics of Food
Pelly and Yasamee, Documents on British Policy Overseas, pp242-245, ‘Urgent request for wheat allocations’
108
Ibid, note 7
107
55
disgrace our administration in history and completely stultify every effort which we are
making to produce a democratic Germany.
109
On 5 May Robertson wrote again to Street, enclosing a strongly worded paper on the food
situation. The 1,000 calorie ration had been introduced in March but, he added: ‘It is not
possible for an adult human being to subsist on 1,000 calories…’ If there were no further
imports, food grains would run out by 27 May and rations would be reduced to 450 calories:
‘Coal production will stop. The trains will stop. The lights will go out.’
110
With the introduction of bread rationing in Britain on 21 July 1946, and agreement to allocate
an additional 200,000 tons of US wheat to the British Zone, the situation eased, but rations in
Germany continued at a low level and did not exceed 1,500 calories until after the
introduction of Marshall Aid in the second half of 1948. In October 1946 an American
dockers’ strike brought food shipments almost to a standstill. In the Spring of 1947, after
rations were reduced to 750 calories in the Ruhr, there was a string of hunger strikes and
demonstrations. Conditions did not improve until 1948-9, following substantial increases in
111
US aid and food imports.
‘Epidemics need no Passports’ – disease and communism
Montgomery and his officers in Germany believed that the restoration of law and order, the
provision of enough food to prevent starvation and economic reconstruction to provide a
reasonable standard of living were necessary, not only to help the German people, but
because it was in their own interest to prevent disease and social unrest spreading from
Germany to the rest of Western Europe.
112
A precedent which concerned them greatly was
the epidemic of influenza at the end of the First World War, which was widely believed to
have killed more people than the war itself.
stopped by physical barriers.
114
113
Unlike enemy armies, disease could not be
A starving population was more susceptible to disease and
‘epidemics need no passports,’ as the author of an article in the British Zone Review wrote in
109
BLM 170/10, message from Montgomery to Hynd, 26 Feb. 1946
FO 1030/303, letter from Robertson to Street, 5 May 1946
111
Kramer, The West German Economy, pp73-84
112
IWM BLM 86/19, address to the Newspaper Society, 2 Oct. 1945
113
Ibid; Farquharson, The Western Allies and the Politics of Food, p90, citing a speech by Ernest Bevin, HC Deb 26
October 1945 vol 414 c2375; Mary Fulbrook, Dissonant Lives: Generations and violence through the German
dictatorships (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p60, citing Richard Bessel, Germany after the First World War
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), p39
114
E.g. Bevin told Parliament on 26 Oct. 1945 that: ‘… while the Channel could be used to stop Germans, it cannot
stop germs. You cannot limit the devastation of an epidemic by a frontier or a strategic post.’
110
56
September 1945.
115
Alec Bishop made a similar point in his memoirs after describing
conditions in Germany at the end of the war:
Without vigorous help and support it was inevitable that epidemics would spread throughout
the country, endangering the health of the Occupying Forces and of the whole of Western
Europe.
He continued by saying:
It was also clear that unless the German people were helped to transform the conditions
then existing into a situation which would provide a bearable if modest standard of living it
would be impossible to prevent the spread of communism throughout the whole country.
116
British anti-communism pre-dated the Cold War and was not new in 1945. The idea that
communism was a ‘disease of the mind’ had been widespread among Conservative Party
politicians and the popular press since the Bolshevik revolution of 1917.
In a recent article on ‘The Creeds of the Devil’, Antoine Capet provided numerous examples
of Churchill’s use of medical imagery between the wars, describing the ‘menace of
Bolshevism’ as ‘the poisoned peril’ or ‘a plague bacillus’ infecting civilisation.
117
In the
following passage, published in 1929 but based on a newspaper article written in 1920,
Churchill graphically linked the geographical country of Russia with the triple threat of war,
disease and ideology:
[To the East of Poland] lay the huge mass of Russia—not a wounded Russia only, but a
poisoned Russia, an infected Russia, a plague-bearing Russia, a Russia of armed hordes
not only smiting with bayonet and with cannon, but accompanied and preceded by swarms
of typhus-bearing vermin which slew the bodies of men, and political doctrines which
destroyed the health and even the souls of nations.
118
The emotional connection between war, disease and political doctrines could appear equally
relevant in 1945. Between 1918 and 1922 an estimated three million people died in Russia
115
‘Will Germany Starve this Winter: the Problem of Feeding the British Zone’, British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.1, 29
Sept. 1945, p3
116
Bishop, Look Back with Pleasure, p89
117
Antoine Capet, ‘“The Creeds of the Devil’ Churchill between the Two Totalitarianisms, 1917 – 1945”, Finest Hour
Online, 31 August 2009
[http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour-online/725-the-creeds-of-thedevil-churchill-between-the-two-totalitarianisms-1917-1945 accessed 26 September 2009]
118
Winston Churchill, The World Crisis, 6 vols., (London: Thornton Butterworth, 1923-31. Abridged Edition, London :
Penguin, 2007), Vol. IV, The Aftermath, quoted in Capet, ‘The Creeds of the Devil’
57
from typhus, a highly infectious disease spread by the human body louse.
119
Outbreaks of
typhus were widespread in Germany in 1945 and were controlled by the Allies only by
routinely dusting with DDT anyone suspected of being a source of infection, regardless of
their nationality or status.
120
Capet does not agree with some revisionist historians, who have claimed that Churchill’s
greatest lifetime struggle was against a ‘Bolshevist’ Soviet Union and its communist allies,
rather than against the fascist dictatorships of Germany, Italy and Japan,
121
arguing that
whereas he was convinced that Nazi Germany had to be destroyed, Churchill eventually
came to terms with the existence of Soviet Russia, however much he disliked it. However,
once Nazi Germany had been defeated in 1945, it was easy for Churchill to revert to the role
of anti-communist crusader and claim that he had always been consistent in his views. He
had, after all, proposed to the War Cabinet on the eve of the Armistice in 1918 that ‘[We]
might have to build up the German army, as it was important to get Germany on its legs
again for fear of the spread of Bolshevism,’ and told Lloyd George in April 1919 that their
policy should be to ‘Feed Germany; fight Bolshevism; make Germany fight Bolshevism.’
122
Lloyd George famously remarked of Churchill: ‘His ducal blood revolted against the
wholesale elimination of Grand Dukes in Russia.’
123
Similarly, as army officers and privileged
members of the British professional establishment, Montgomery, Robertson and Bishop
spent their working lives defending Britain’s position in the world and any threat to it, whether
from Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, or elsewhere, affected them personally. For all
three in 1945, as for Churchill in 1919, starvation, disease, communism and social unrest
were four aspects of the same problem, which could be summarised as a breakdown of the
established social order and the need to ‘rebuild civilisation’, as they understood it. Nazi
Germany had been destroyed, but the other threats remained. As Montgomery said in June
1945 in a speech on receiving the freedom of the City of Antwerp, echoing Churchill in his
reference to ‘toil and sweat’:
119
Joseph M. Conlon, ‘The Historical Impact of Epidemic Typhus’,
[http://entomology.montana.edu/historybug/TYPHUS-Conlon.pdf accessed 26 August 2009]
120
Ibid; Jessica Reinisch, Public Health in Germany under Soviet and Allied Occupation, 1943-1947 (PhD Diss:
London, 2004), p373
121
David Carlton, ‘Churchill and the Two Evil Empires’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (Sixth Series),
Vol.11, 2001, pp331-351
122
Quoted in Capet, ‘Creeds of the Devil’
123
Ibid
58
Our first task is now ended. Together we have won the war, and have destroyed the Nazi
tyranny of Europe. Our hardest task remains to be tackled. Out of the chaos and confusion
which the war has inflicted on Europe we have to rebuild our European civilisation. In
destroying the Nazi power, we have destroyed one great evil; much that was good and
beautiful has also been destroyed, and the economic organisation of Europe lies in ruins.
We can rebuild what has been destroyed only by toil and sweat, and there is no short cut
back to prosperity.
124
It is unlikely that Churchill, while still Prime Minister in 1945, issued any direct instructions to
Montgomery to rebuild Germany with the aim of countering a perceived direct military threat
from the Soviet Union, though documents released by the National Archives in 1998 showed
that, immediately after the end of the war, secret plans, codenamed ‘Operation Unthinkable’,
were made for a surprise Anglo-American attack on the Soviet Union, with the assistance of
ten German divisions.
125
However there is evidence that both Churchill and Montgomery
were concerned that the Soviet Union would encourage communist agitators within
Germany. For example, in an exchange of telegrams on 5 June 1945, Montgomery wrote:
I have increasing evidence every day of communist propaganda going on in the British
Zone and agents are working in the Russian DP camps and these meetings are being
attended by German agents. The DP camps are being evacuated to the Russian Zone but
this is a slow business and in any case communist ‘cells’ will be left behind for certain. I am
watching the situation very carefully….
126
In August 1945, after the Potsdam Agreements, the immediate military threat from Russia
receded and Montgomery was able to report to his Corps Commanders that:
The military problem has now changed in light of the Berlin meetings. The military situation
via-a-vis the Russians is now 100 per cent all right. It is evident that the Russians will
127
shortly declare war on Japan.
For the remainder of his year as Military Governor, there is little mention in Montgomery’s
papers of any direct threat from Russia. However, the ideological threat of communism to the
124
BLM 85/7, speech in reply to receiving the Freedom of the City of Antwerp, 7 June 1945
Capet, ‘The Creeds of the Devil’; David Reynolds, In Command of History: Churchill Fighting and Writing the
Second World War (London: Allen Lane, 2004), pp476-7
See also IWM BLM 162, ‘The Truth about the Telegram’. In a speech at Woodford in 1954, Churchill said he had
sent Montgomery a telegram in May 1945 ordering him to ‘stack’ weapons previously used by the German armies,
in case they were needed ‘to fight the Russians with German help.’ The speech aroused controversy in the press
and in Parliament and Churchill was obliged to retract the claim, after no such telegram could be found in the
archives. In a handwritten note for the file, dated June 1959, Montgomery stated that there never was any telegram,
as he received verbal, but not written, orders from Churchill to do this, but subsequently decided, on his own
initiative, to destroy the weapons after receiving no further instructions from London.
126
IWM BLM 164/3, telegram from Montgomery to Churchill dated 5 June 1945.
127
BLM 86/3, ‘Notes of Corps Commanders Conference’, 2 Aug. 1945
125
59
established order continued to underlie his concerns, expressed for example in his
valedictory memo of 1 May 1946, that they might ‘fail in Germany’ due to food shortages,
economic conditions, the attitude of the local population and the need for a ‘change of heart’.
If conditions did not improve, an increasingly hostile German population would, he believed,
‘begin to look EAST. When that happens we shall have failed, and there will exist a definite
menace to the British Empire.’
128
The creation of a new directive on Military Government
The policy of German reconstruction was elaborated and confirmed in a new directive issued
by Robertson, as Montgomery’s chief of staff, on 10 September 1945, following two months
of discussions within Military Government. In his second ‘Note on the Present Situation’,
issued on 6 July 1945, Montgomery stated that over the past two months the ‘full extent of
the debacle’ had become apparent and they now knew the ‘magnitude of the problem that
confronts us in the rebuilding of Germany.’
129
Part of the problem was ‘a tendency to adhere
rigidly’ to instructions issued earlier by SHAEF, the joint US and British Supreme
Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force.
130
These instructions, he continued, were
now out of date and a new general directive was required. A week later in his third ‘Note’, he
wrote that:
Our present attitude towards the German people is negative, it must be replaced by one
that is positive and holds out hope for the future.
131
Montgomery’s ‘Notes’ did not provide much detail about the specific actions required from
his subordinates, but on 21 July army commanders and Control Commission heads of
division were sent the ‘rough draft’ of a new detailed directive.
132
This stated that: ‘the
following action will be taken by 21 Army Group and the Control Commission.’ There
128
BLM 88/13, ‘Notes on the German situation’, 1 May 1946
BLM 85/15, ‘Notes on the Present Situation’, 6 July 1945
130
A large number of instruction documents were issued by US and British bodies during planning for the
occupation, including the printed set of directives issued by the British War Office in October 1944. The SHAEF
handbook, issued in December 1944, covered the immediate pre- and post-surrender period, before SHAEF was
dissolved in July 1945. Some documents were agreed tripartite policy; others represented UK or US views only. The
often quoted US directive, JCS 1067, for example, did not apply to the British Zone and the US and British did not
agreed a common occupation policy before their two zones merged to form the ‘Bizone’ in January 1947. See, inter
alia, FO 371/46730, ‘C1071 – Allied Policy for the Occupation and Military Government of Germany’; Donnison, Civil
Affairs, North-West Europe, chapter 11, ‘Supreme Commander’s Plans for Germany’; Michael Balfour and John
Mair, Four Power Control in Germany and Austria 1945-1946 (Oxford: Survey of International Affairs 1939-1946,
Oxford University Press, 1956), pp22-24; Reusch, Deutsches Berufsbeamtentum, pp121ff; Ullrich Schneider, ‘Nach
dem Sieg: Besatzungspolitik und Militäregierung’ in Josef Foschepoth & Rolf Steininger (eds.), Britische
Deutschland- und Besatzungspolitik (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1985), pp47-64.
131
IWM BLM 85/15, ‘Notes on the Present Situation’, 14 July 1946
132
FO 1050/806, ‘Draft Directive from Chief of Staff (British Zone)’, 21 July 1945
129
60
followed twenty pages of specific instructions on steps to be taken to reconstruct Germany,
under thirty headings including: ‘Shortage of Food’, ‘Shortage of Coal’, ‘Inadequate
Transportation Facilities’, ‘Re-Starting of Vital Industries’, ‘Housing Shortage’, ‘Freedom from
Disease’, ‘Reopening of Schools’, ‘Trade Unions’, ‘Churches’, ‘German Youth’, ‘Freedom of
Assembly’, ‘Freedom of Speech’, ‘Political Parties’ and ‘Elections’. Recipients were
requested to submit comments, rewriting paragraphs if necessary, no later than the evening
of the following Wednesday, 25 July.
aspects toned down,
134
133
Over the next month the draft was revised, a few
and the final directive issued on 10 September 1945.
135
The timing was significant, as the first ‘rough draft’ directive was issued on 21 July, after the
General Election in Britain on 5 July, but before the announcement of the results on 26 July
and the formation of a new Labour government. The draft was issued while Truman, Stalin
and Churchill, later Attlee, were meeting at Potsdam to decide the future of Germany, but
before agreement was reached and the conference closed on 2 August. It appears as if
Montgomery was trying to establish a new policy for the British Zone and pre-empt the
outcome of both the election in Britain and decisions reached at Potsdam, while he had the
freedom to act on his own initiative. The timing also coincided with the replacement of
Montgomery’s Chief of Staff, General Weeks, by Robertson. Robertson’s appointment was
confirmed by the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, on 21 July and he arrived in Germany to
take over from Weeks on 25 July.
136
Perhaps one reason Montgomery placed such urgency
on Robertson’s appointment, was to ensure that a chief of staff was in place whom he knew
well and could trust to implement the new directive.
The extent of the change in direction is evident from comparing the new directive to the
previous set of directives issued by the War Office in October 1944. Many of the earlier
directives covered diplomatic and legal issues, such as international treaties, relations with
neutral countries and the reform of Nazi laws. Others concerned disbanding the German
armed forces, the status of prisoners-of war, the destruction of war material and the control
133
Ibid
For example, headings such as ‘Shortage of Food’ and ‘Inadequate Transportation facilities’ were changed to a
more neutral ‘Food’ and ‘Transportation Facilities’.
135
FO 1050/1040, ‘Directive on Military Government from Chief of Staff (British Zone)’, 10 Sept. 1945. For the
Foreign Office reaction to the directive, which they received on 14 Sept. see FO 371/46735, C5962. A senior official,
Con O’Neill, minuted: ‘It gives me, in general, the impression that British Military Govt. has now embarked on a
policy of Full Speed Ahead for German rehabilitation.’
136
WO 258/83
134
61
of German industries.
137
The September 1945 directive created new policies for previously
unexpected circumstances and did not conflict directly with previous instructions. Taken as a
whole, however, it represented a change in direction from prevention, control and restrictions
on German economic and political activities, to reconstruction of the physical infrastructure
and the economy, and the renewal of social and political life.
Montgomery was probably well aware that a constructive policy towards Germany was
unlikely to receive much sympathy in Britain among politicians and public opinion. Public
hostility towards Germany reached its highest point in April and May 1945, as people reacted
to numerous reports of war crimes and atrocities, culminating with the newsreel films of
concentration camps.
138
The following sections explore further the reasons for the change in
Military Government policy, so soon after the end of the war. They show that, while it was
partly a pragmatic response by Montgomery and his generals to physical destruction, food
shortages, disease, lawlessness and possible social unrest in the British Zone, it can also be
explained as an idealistic interpretation of lessons they had learnt over the previous fifty
years, in particular their memories of the First World War, their understanding of the British
Empire as a force for good in the world and their personal moral and religious beliefs.
2.3 Missionary idealism: the occupation as a moral crusade
‘We have won the war; we now have to rebuild a new civilisation: a new world in which all
nations may live in peace and prosperity. We cannot achieve success in this great task
unless we have a firm spiritual basis on which to build.’
139
‘A strong and united Empire, united in a common belief in freedom and justice, is one of the
greatest forces for good in the world today.’
137
140
BLM 165/5
Margaret Kertesz, The Enemy – British images of the German People during the Second World War (Univ. of
Sussex: unpublished PhD Diss, 1993), p191
139
BLM 86/5, reply by Montgomery on receiving the Freedom of Lambeth, 15 Aug. 1945
140
BLM 86/11, speech by Montgomery on receiving the Freedom of Londonderry, 15 Sept. 1945
138
62
Memories of the First World War
In the first few months after the end of the Second World War, Montgomery and many of his
colleagues assumed that the occupation would last twenty years or more, to prevent any
new German government from re-arming and industrialists from building weapons, as had
happened after the First World War.
141
Material written for dissemination to the troops and
Control Commission staff made frequent reference to avoiding mistakes made earlier, when
the British army occupied the Rhineland. Montgomery’s first letter on non-fraternisation, for
example, issued in March 1945, warned that:
Twenty-seven years ago the Allies occupied Germany: but Germany has been at war ever
since. Our Army took no revenge in 1918; it was more than considerate, and before a few
weeks had passed many soldiers were adopted into German households. The enemy
worked hard at being amiable…
Meanwhile the German general staff prepared for war, and
‘Organising sympathy’ became a German industry … So accommodating were the
occupying forces that the Germans came to believe we would never fight them again in any
142
cause.
Similar cautionary messages were contained in a series of articles in early issues of the
British Zone Review. Readers were told that the Rhineland occupation was used by the
Germans to divide the Allies, by courting sympathy from the British whilst complaining to
them about the French. Meanwhile Germany was ‘only shamming dead financially and
economically’.
143
Contemporary accounts, written in the 1920s, described how the troops generally got on well
144
with the local population and in many cases returned home ‘definitely pro-German’,
but
some authors criticised the Allies for not actively supporting democratic forces within
Germany.
145
Violet Markham, who spent two years in Germany with her husband, the chief
141
BLM 87/2, ‘Notes on the post-war army’, 7 Oct. 1945; George Murray, ‘The British Contribution’ in Arthur
Hearnden (ed.), The British in Germany: Educational Reconstruction after 1945 (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1978),
p65; Noel Annan, Changing Enemies: The Defeat and Regeneration of Germany (London: Harper Collins, 1995),
p155
142
BLM 85/10
143
‘Experiences of Rhineland Occupation 1919-1925’, British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.2, 13 Oct. 1945, p5. See also
Lessons of History’, British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.5, 24 Nov. 1945, pp1-2; Why Weimar Failed’, British Zone
Review, Vol.1, No.7, 22 Dec. 1945, pp4-5
144
Violet Markham, Return Passage (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), p159
145
Notably G.E.R. Gedye, The Revolver Republic: France’s Bid for the Rhine (London: J.W. Arrowsmith Limited,
1930). See below pp168-9
63
demobilization officer for the British Army of the Rhine, wrote in A Woman’s Watch on the
Rhine that ‘Life in Cologne is very pleasant for the occupying army’ and ‘surely no Army of
Occupation was ever so well housed or so comfortable as we are.’
146
Although she had no
doubts as to the ‘noble ideal’ for which the British had fought the war, and was irritated at
Germany’s ‘refusal to say she is sorry’, she was critical of Allied post-war policy, especially
the continuation of the economic blockade and the Treaty of Versailles which, she said, had
‘scrapped the fundamental ideals for which we fought the war.’
147
In her view, the democratic
government which emerged in Germany in 1918 had an impossible task as it was
‘confronted by hunger, defeat, despair, and the miseries which resulted from the blockade’
and the Allies were to blame for the rise of the extreme parties and the decline in the vote for
the Social Democrats in the elections of 1920.
148
A group of British intelligence officers, given the task of observing conditions in Germany in
1919, were more concerned with the threat of social collapse or ‘Bolshevism’ than with a
revival of German militarism, which shows that in some respects there was little change in
British attitudes between then and 1945. One of the officers wrote in his report that
Bolshevism was a dangerous doctrine spread by agitators, who were either ‘Adventurers’
receiving financial support from Russia, or ‘Idealists’ who came ‘from the “modern”
intellectual and artistic classes.’ In normal times, when people were contented and
prosperous, the ‘ordinary German’ would pay no attention to the ‘doctrines of the
revolutionary’, but:
Under the increasing stress of famine and unemployment, there is no question but that the
whole country will be consumed by the flame of Bolshevism which will spread with such
rapidity that the waters of the Rhine will be incapable of checking its advance.
149
The conclusion to be drawn, according to a Foreign Office memo summarising the reports,
was that it was in British and Allied interests to relax the blockade and permit food supplies
to enter the country and so assist the Germans to resume a normal economic life.
146
150
Violet Markham, A Woman’s Watch on the Rhine (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1921), p26, p66
Ibid, p298, p257, p207
Ibid, p208, p220
149
FO 608/129, ‘Peace Conference files (British delegation) 1919’, folios 422-458, ‘Bolshevism in Germany’, report
by Lt. Gibson, Irish Guards, of a visit to Germany from 1-24 Feb. [1919]
150
Ibid, folios 403-412, ‘Conditions in Germany’, memo by Mr Powicke, 26 Feb. 1919, with attached report by
Colonel Cornwall summarising the observations of the officers.
147
148
64
These contemporary views of Germany after the First World War, written and published in
1919 and 1921, help explain some of the ambivalence in British policy and attitudes after the
Second World War. On the one hand, a concern not to be deceived again by a duplicitous
people, who had courted sympathy from well-meaning Allied soldiers, claiming they were
victims of an unjust peace settlement, while planning their revenge and preparing for war.
But on the other hand, a concern that the hunger, despair and unemployment which followed
the First World War should not be repeated, for fear that an even worse disaster might occur
in the not so distant future, and a belief that restrictive measures alone, however strictly
enforced, were insufficient to avoid mistakes made previously.
The lessons Robertson learnt from his father, who had commanded the British Army of the
Rhine from 1919-1920, were different from the conventional wisdom prevalent in 1945
among British Members of Parliament. Robertson described later how, following his
appointment as Deputy Military Governor in July 1945, he was given a copy of Brigadier
Morgan’s book Assize of Arms
152
Germans.’
151
as ‘our guide in preventing clandestine re-armament by the
His copy was one of 800 printed by the War Office for distribution to British
members of the Control Commission.
153
Morgan had been a member of the Inter-Allied
Military Control Commission in Germany from 1919 to 1923 and was fiercely critical of the
British failure to prevent German re-armament. During the Second World War, he worked
closely with a post-war policy group of members of both Houses of Parliament, which
produced two reports on German disarmament and advocated a harsh post-war policy
towards Germany.
154
Robertson remarked that, at first, ‘it all seemed to make good sense’,
but then referred to his own experience as a member of the British delegation at the League
of Nations in Geneva in 1932-3 and how this had made him: ‘a first-hand witness of the
failure to deal properly with Germany after World War 1.’ He continued by saying:
151
J.H. Morgan, Assize of Arms: being the story of the Disarmament of Germany and her Rearmament (1919-1939)
(London: Methuen, 1945)
152
Robertson, ‘A Miracle? Potsdam 1945 – Western Germany 1965’
153
David G. Williamson, The British in Germany 1918-1930: the Reluctant Occupiers (New York, Oxford: Berg,
1991), p348
154
Morgan, Assize of Arms, p251. The reports of the parliamentary group were published with an introduction for a
general audience as: Anthony Weymouth, Germany: Disease and Treatment (London: Hutchinson, 1945)
65
My father had been Military Governor for a period then. He often talked to me about the
mistakes and problems of those years. ‘The idea that you can hold down a country like
Germany with her face in the dust indefinitely is a foolish one’ he used to say.
155
If it was not possible to ‘hold Germany down’ for ever, there had to be an alternative policy to
one that was purely negative, based on disarmament, demilitarisation and economic
controls, as at the end of the First World War.
The lessons Montgomery, Robertson, Bishop and many of their generation learnt from their
understanding of the First World War, the Rhineland Occupation, the Bolshevik Revolution of
1917, inflation in Germany in the 1920s and economic depression in Britain and elsewhere in
the 1930s, were that poverty and unemployment were a prime cause of social unrest and
political dissatisfaction. They did not question the need for disarmament and demilitarisation,
but believed this had to be combined with economic reconstruction, active support for
democratic political parties and willingness to work together with those Germans who were
prepared to accept their professed values and principles.
Some historians of Germany have criticised the British authorities for not supporting the
antifascist groups that emerged very widely in Germany at the end of the war.
156
The
background and outlook of the British officers responsible for Military Government meant that
they were unlikely to sympathise with people they saw as potential communist sympathisers
or revolutionaries. Their priorities, as army officers and members of the British professional
middle classes, were dealing with chaos and disorder, disease and the threat of starvation.
The German armies had been utterly defeated. There was no sign of resistance, the German
population was cooperative and did as it was told. The last thing they wanted was anything
that might encourage social unrest, let alone spread dangerous ideas that might disturb the
established order at home.
Echoes of Empire
A number of commentators have observed that British policy and actions in occupied
Germany showed many similarities with those used to govern the British Empire, especially
155
Robertson, ‘A Miracle? Potsdam 1945 – Western Germany 1965’
Gareth Pritchard, ‘Schwarzenberg 1945: Antifascists and the “Third Way” in German Politics’, European History
Quarterly, Vol.35(4), 2005, pp499-522
156
66
the strategy of indirect rule and appointment of local, district and regional commissioners.
Donald Cameron Watt, for example, wrote that:
It will be obvious that the method of control and re-education bears a strong resemblance to
the systems of indirect rule administered in the 1890s by Lord Cromer in Egypt and Lord
157
Lugard in sub-Saharan Africa.
Before the outbreak of war in 1939, Montgomery, Bishop, Robertson and other senior army
officers of their generation had spent most of their working lives in India, Africa, Egypt or
Palestine and their outlook on the world was permeated with the ideals, values and
prejudices of the British Empire. In the preface to his memoirs Bishop wrote that:
This book is about a life mostly spent in the service of the British Empire. Although it is
fashionable at the present time to decry this period of our history, the author hopes that his
story may make some contribution towards a better understanding of our successes and
failures and of the joys and sorrows which came our way.
158
For them, the Empire was a force for good in the world, and it was only by drawing on the
strength, manpower and resources of the empire, that Britain could succeed in defeating the
continental powers of Germany and Italy. British rule was also, so they believed, in the best
interests of the local population. As Bishop wrote in his memoirs:
I feel no doubt that when an authoritative history of our Colonial Empire comes to be
written, the part played by the British officials who administered it in establishing and
maintaining law and order, in holding the interests of the people above all else and in
educating and preparing them to run their own affairs in due course will become fully
evident.
159
Robertson expressed a similar view in a speech to Control Commission staff in July 1947, in
which he said:
We here are the empire builders … the empire of true democracy, of peace and decency
160
Montgomery’s view of the Empire transcended a narrow English or British nationalism. In two
speeches in September 1945, on being made Honorary Burgess of the City of Belfast and
157
D.C. Watt, Britain looks to Germany A Study of British Opinion and Policy towards Germany since 1945 (London:
Oswald Wolff, 1965), p73
158
Bishop, Look Back with Pleasure, pi
159
Ibid, p58
160
FO 1030/329, Verbatim notes of speech by Deputy Military Governor to Staff’, 31 July 1947, quoted in
Williamson, A Most Diplomatic General, p105
67
awarded the Freedom of the City of Londonderry, he referred to himself as an Irishman, and
to Londonderry as ‘almost his home town’.
161
Although he was born in London, his family
had owned an estate for several generations at Moville, twenty miles from Londonderry,
across the border with the Irish Republic in County Donegal. A republican inhabitant of the
city of Derry would not have agreed with the content of these speeches then, let alone now,
but we have no reason to doubt that the views Montgomery expressed were sincere and a
genuine reflection of what he thought and felt at the time:
Before the war, the Empire was everywhere weak … A weak Empire is a danger to
ourselves and to the whole world. But a strong and united Empire, united in a common
belief in freedom and justice, is one of the greatest forces for good in the world today.
This ancient city of ours can well understand these things, since it has itself been through
difficult times and suffered great tribulations: the ancient city of Derry being finally reduced
to ashes early in the seventeenth century. But the people of London assisted in the work of
reconstruction, and a new city arose on the ruins of the old: and was called Londonderry,
on account of its connection with the capital of the Empire.
We of Londonderry thus have a link with the Empire that can never be broken: a link that
binds us strongly to the very heart of the Empire.
162
This idealistic view of the Empire was echoed by Bishop, when he wrote of the idea of
imperial trusteeship:
Today ‘Colonialism’ has become for many a term of reproach, but no one who saw British
Colonial officials in action could fail to appreciate the sense of responsibility which animated
them all … It is hardly realised today how seriously these men took their responsibilities as
the trustees of the people whose affairs they were administrating until the time came when
they were able to take the task over themselves.
163
The idea of imperial trusteeship could be translated into a similar view of the British role in
occupied Germany, whereby the British would administer a country until the ‘natives’ could
be trusted to govern themselves. In the absence of any other framework, the British Empire
was a model Montgomery and other officers, born before 1900, believed they knew and
understood and could apply, with modifications, to the problems they faced in the chaos of
post-war Germany.
161
BLM 86/11, speech on receiving the Freedom of the City of Londonderry, 15 Sept. 1945
Ibid
163
Bishop, Look Back with Pleasure, p44
162
68
‘Saving the soul of Germany’
Montgomery, Robertson and Bishop held strong moral and religious beliefs and it is
impossible to understand their motivation and aims in occupied Germany, without some
reference to what might be called ‘missionary idealism’. On several occasions they referred
to their task as a moral crusade, helping the Germans to ‘find their own salvation’
‘fighting a battle over the soul of Germany’,
165
164
or
as if they were missionaries trying to convert
the heathen, rather than victors in war, administering a defeated enemy country.
They were not alone in this. General Eisenhower started his personal D-Day message to all
‘soldiers, sailors and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force’: ‘You are about to embark on
the Great Crusade’.
166
His memoirs of the period are called Crusade in Europe. For many
British and American soldiers, the crusade did not end when the war was won. A British
colonel wrote that, ‘the re-birth of Germany is fundamentally a moral and not a material
issue. It is in fact a moral Crusade … Too much talk about “democracy” (that overworked
word) and not enough about Christianity will tend to place the whole of the vast undertaking
to which we are committed on too low a plane.’
167
In December 1947 Robert Birley, shortly to
be appointed education adviser to the Military Governor in Germany, said that the
experience of the First World War had ‘taught us that military victory was not enough and
that Germany would only cease to threaten the peace of the world if there were a change in
the mind and outlook of the German people. Above all we were faced with what was pre168
eminently a spiritual problem.’
Both Birley and Montgomery believed that the need for ‘a firm spiritual basis on which to
build’ applied to Britain as well as Germany, and could form the basis of the relations
between the two countries.
Party before 1933.
170
169
Over a quarter of the German protestant clergy joined the Nazi
Although there were notable individual examples of resistance, such as
pastors Dietrich Bonhöffer and Martin Niemöller, many prominent individuals in the German
164
‘Introductory Message by the Commander-in-Chief British Zone’, British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.1, 29 Sept.
1945, p1
165
Robertson, Truman presidential library interview; Montgomery, Memoirs, p399
166
Copy given to me by my father who played a part in the D-Day landings. Also available via the Internet,
[http://www.kansasheritage.org/abilene/ikespeech.html accessed 26 August 2009]
167
Letter from Col. J. Hennessey, ‘Open Letter Bag’, British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.4, 10 Nov. 1945, p18
168
Robert Birley, The German Problem and the responsibility of Britain. The Burge lecture (London: SCM Press,
1947), p5
169
BLM 86/5, reply on receiving the Freedom of Lambeth, 15 Aug. 1945
170
Bessel, Germany 1945, p316
69
churches were sympathetic to at least some elements of Nazi ideology, or, at best, failed to
condemn evident crimes and atrocities.
171
But for men such as Montgomery, Robertson and
Bishop, faced at the end of the war with problems that appeared all but insoluble, it was
important to seek out common ground with Germans who shared their values.
Although Nazi Germany represented the epitome of evil, a shared belief in Christianity could
form a common bond with their defeated enemy. Bishop recalled Montgomery saying that:
All the bridges are down between ourselves and the Germans except one, we both share a
common Christianity. Let us see how we can build on that.
172
Montgomery, Robertson and Bishop, shared the view, widely held in Britain at the time, that
political, social, economic or historical explanations for the rise of Nazism, for the war and
the atrocities committed during it, were not enough. Some conservative thinkers argued that
the war had a religious and spiritual dimension. It was a battle between good and evil, and
the rise of the Nazi Party within Germany was due to spiritual factors, or more accurately, to
a lack of spirituality and a lack religious faith.
173
An insight into this way of thinking can be gained from Amy Buller’s Darkness over Germany
published in 1943, in which she referred to the ‘fundamentally religious appeal to the Nazi
youth in much of the teaching given to them.’
174
In her view, the growing secularisation of
society, in Germany and elsewhere, meant that young people were all too easily attracted to
an ersatz religion, with the ceremonies and the sense of belonging that the Nazi party
provided. Many had suffered hardship and unemployment during the economic depression
and the experience of fellowship and the ceremony of the party gave them, she wrote, a
171
Christopher Probst, Protestant Responses to Martin Luther's 'Judenschriften' in Germany, 1929-1945, (London:
PhD Diss, 2008)
172
Bishop, Look back with Pleasure, p165. See also AB2, letter to Dr Stoltenhoff, General Superintendent of the
German Evangelical Church, 5 Jan. 1949
173
For example, Sir Walter Moberly, The Crisis in the University, (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1949), p20. Moberly was
a leading Anglican thinker and member of Moot, a group of liberal, mainly Anglican, theologians and writers that
included T.S. Eliot, J.H. Oldham and Karl Mannheim. See Matthew Grimley, ‘Civil Society and the Clerisy: Christian
Elites and National Culture, c.1930-1950’ in Jose Harris (ed.), Civil Society in British History: Ideas, Identities,
Institutions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp231-247
174
Amy Buller, Darkness over Germany (London, New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co, 1943), p150.
Buller was secretary of the Student Christian Movement and closely connected with High Anglican circles including
Lord Halifax, Archbishop Temple, Walter Moberly and A.D. Lindsay, Master of Balliol College Oxford. In 1947 she
founded Cumberland Lodge, Windsor Great Park, a Christian educational foundation, with support and patronage
from Queen Elizabeth. Moberly was its first Principal. See Walter James, A Short Account of Amy Buller and the
Founding of St. Catherine’s, Cumberland Lodge, (Privately printed, 1979)
70
‘new life and energy [which] transcended as well as transformed their immediate tasks and
gave their own little existence a cosmic significance and eternal destiny.’
175
Bishop wrote in similar terms in May 1946, in an article in the British Zone Review entitled
‘Ave atque vale’
176
on Montgomery’s retirement as military governor. He described their
practical achievements in the first year of occupation under ‘Field Marshal Montgomery’s
guidance and inspiration’, seamlessly combining the positive and negative aspects of their
work: disarming and disbanding the Wehrmacht, destroying quantities of ammunition,
repatriating two million displaced persons, restoring road, rail and canal systems,
denazification and internment of 50,000 Nazi leaders and officials, the encouragement of
new political parties, licensing of newspapers, opening of schools and universities and so on.
However, this was only part of their task as:
The war unleashed by Nazism on the world has left Germany not only shattered materially
but faced with grave spiritual difficulties … None of these efforts can … succeed unless
177
they are accompanied by a spiritual regeneration of the German people.
The ‘greatest task facing the British authorities’, he continued, was to ‘hold out some
measure of hope to the German people’ that an acceptance of the Christian principles of
‘humanism and democracy’, would eventually produce the economic benefits of ‘a
reasonable standard of living’, and their ability to re-enter ‘the international economic life of
Europe’.
178
On 4 May 1950, shortly before he left Germany, Bishop’s faith appeared to have been
rewarded, when he was able to speak with confidence, at the opening of the ‘British Centre’,
Die Brücke, in Cologne, and say:
You and I may hear, at times, the remarks of pessimistic people who say that we have so
little in common, and that we can, therefore, learn so little from one another. That is not
true. We have much in common, and much to learn from one another. The most important
thing that we have in common is, of course, this.
175
Buller, Darkness over Germany, p193, p196
The quote is from Catullus, ‘Atque in perpetuum, frater, ave atque vale’, which the Oxford Dictionary of
Quotations translates as ‘And so, my brother, hail, and farewell evermore!’
177
‘Ave Atque Vale’, British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.17, 11 May 1946, initialled W.H.A.B.
178
Ibid
176
71
We both believe that there was once a man who, although he never went to a university, or
wrote a book, or travelled more than 200 miles from where he was born, yet became the
centre-piece of the human race, and the leader of the column of progress.
I hope and pray that Almighty God may guide and bless our joint work in this house.
179
Exactly five years after Montgomery received the unconditional surrender of all German
armed forces in North-West Europe, Bishop was able to refer to their common belief in
Christianity, the great ‘kindness and hospitality’ he had received in Cologne; to the ‘one
overriding wish’ shared by ‘ordinary peoples of all countries’ that their children would live a
better and more peaceful life than he or his generation had experienced; and to his
understanding that British and Germans had ‘much in common and much to learn from one
another.’
180
2.4 Conclusion
We know a great deal about what life was like in Germany after the war, but mostly from the
point of view of German writers and politicians, such as novels by Heinrich Böll, plays by
Wolfgang Börchert, numerous historical works and personal memoirs. In addition, many
historians have tried to reinterpret the past critically, writing deliberately with hindsight, on
topics such as the failure to pursue those guilty of Nazi war crimes, how the past is
remembered and commemorated, or highlighting social and cultural continuities across the
great divide of 1945.
The purpose of this chapter is not to re-visit these debates, but to provide an alternative, now
largely forgotten, perspective; that of three British senior army officers who were present at
the time. Historians are sometimes tempted to judge the past on the basis of what they
believe people should have done, rather than what they did. This study does not attempt to
make any value judgement and approve or criticise the individuals researched. It describes
the situation in Germany as perceived through their eyes, together with their aims and
intentions, and to some extent, their achievements and failures as they perceived them. This
is, of course, a partial view, which does not take full account of other evidence, such as the
179
180
AB3, speech by Bishop at the opening of Die Brücke in Cologne, 4 May 1950
Ibid
72
views of the Germans they dealt with, or the limitations and constraints under which they
acted. It may, however, help correct some misunderstandings where historians have argued
that a particular British or Allied policy was ‘a failure’ or ‘ineffective’, based on not fully
appreciating what men such as Montgomery, Robertson and Bishop aimed to achieve at the
time. Their view of Germany Zero Hour, Stunde Null, was not unlike a contemporary German
perspective as told in many personal memoirs: chaos and destruction, hunger and
starvation, a sense of hopelessness and fear for the future, but despite all this, a
determination to try to make things better. Shocked at the destruction they saw around them,
they worked to restore the basic elements of what they perceived as civilised society:
enforcement of law and order; provision of enough food to prevent starvation, control of
disease and rebuilding the economic infrastructure. This seemed a huge task, both more
important and more difficult than enforcing the negative provisions of the Potsdam
Agreement to disarm, demilitarise and denazify Germany.
The greatest task of all, that of ‘winning the peace’, was more difficult to define. The three
generals would describe it in different ways at different times as ‘spiritual regeneration’
change of heart’
182
, ‘the growth of truly democratic thought’
intellectual enlightenment’
democracy’
185
181
, ‘a
183
, the ‘re-birth of moral and
184
, ‘the acceptance of the principles of Christian humanism and
or simply the ‘administration of Germany according to the principles which we
hold to be right.’
186
To understand what they and other senior officers of their generation
meant, it is necessary to refer to their family and social backgrounds, education at public
school, experiences in the First World War and after, understanding of the British Empire,
and personal religious and moral beliefs. They had tremendous confidence in the strength of
their own traditions and sought to apply these to the situation they found in Germany.
People were more important to them than organisational structures and the principles that
meant most to them were those of fairness, (being ‘stern but just’), individual responsibility,
(those who rule should do so not in their own interest but in that of those they serve) and
personal character (‘justum et tenacem propositi virum’ – the wise man firm of purpose),
181
Bishop, ‘Can we re-educate Germany?’ British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.6, 8 Dec. 1945, pp3-4, initialled W.H.A.B.
Montgomery, BLM 88/7, memorandum on ‘The Problem in Germany’, 1 Feb. 1946
Robertson, FO 1030/328, DMG press conference, 29 April 1947
184
Ibid
185
Bishop, ‘Ave Atque Vale’, British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.17, 11 May 1946, initialled W.H.A.B.
186
Montgomery, ‘Introductory Message by the Commander-in-Chief British Zone’, British Zone Review, Vol.1 No.1,
29 Sept. 1945, p1
182
183
73
together with a firmly grounded sense of morality and religious belief. Perhaps this approach,
of never forgetting that people mattered, was best summarised in a personal letter sent to
Bishop, shortly before Christmas 1949, by Karl Arnold, a leading German politician, Christian
socialist and Minister-President for North Rhine-Westphalia from 1947-1956:
I am an honest admirer of your ability, not to lose sight of the human angle [Das
Menschliche niemals aus dem Auge zu verlieren] in the most difficult situations, which is the
decisive factor in the relationship between victor and vanquished, if our great and common
peace interests are not to suffer.
187
In subsequent years, Montgomery, Robertson and Bishop looked back with pride on their
achievements in Germany. The policies of physical and economic reconstruction, political
renewal and personal reconciliation, which they started to implement in 1945, continued to
apply throughout the occupation, despite changes in personnel, changes in emphasis and
increased involvement by politicians in London. The next chapter discusses Montgomery’s
successor as Military Governor, Sholto Douglas. His more pragmatic and less idealistic
approach to a different set of challenges highlights the complexity and some of the
contradictions of the occupation.
187
AB2, letter from Karl Arnold, 22 Dec. 1949, my translation from the original German.
74
3
Sholto Douglas: ‘The unhappiest period in my entire official life’:
May 1946 – November 1947
‘It is still impossible for me to think of the time that I spent as Military Governor
and Commander-in-Chief in Germany as anything but the unhappiest period
of my entire official life’
1
Sholto Douglas in Hamburg, 1946 or 1947
2
Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Sir Sholto Douglas, was the exception among the three
British Military Governors. His formative experience as a young man was fighting as an
airman over the Western Front in the First World War. He portrayed himself in his memoirs
as one of a select group of fighter pilots, engaged in heroic individual combat with an equally
brave and determined enemy, describing encounters with German fighter aces such as von
3
4
Richthofen and Hermann Goering. Whereas Montgomery enjoyed his time in Germany and
Robertson looked back with satisfaction at having contributed to the ‘miracle’ of a prosperous
1
Sholto Douglas with Robert Wright, Years of Command: the second volume of the autobiography of Sholto
Douglas, Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Douglas of Kirtleside G.C.B. M.C. D.F.S. (London: Collins, 1966),
p362
2
Photograph from private family archive
3
Sholto Douglas, Years of Combat: the first volume of the autobiography of Sholto Douglas, Marshal of the Royal
Air Force Lord Douglas of Kirtleside G.C.B. M.C. D.F.S. (London: Collins, 1963)
4
BLM 170/21, letter to Attlee, 2 May 1946
75
5
and contented West Germany, Douglas recalled it as the unhappiest period in his official life
and wondered why he, an air force officer, was asked to solve problems ‘which should have
6
been in the hands of the politicians.’ Though nominally in charge, he acted as a figurehead,
with Robertson taking an increasingly important role in all aspects of administration.
7
Douglas’ tenure as Military Governor from May 1946 to November 1947 coincided with the
most difficult period of the occupation. Initial goodwill and relief that the war was over were
8
succeeded by hunger strikes and protests. Many Germans blamed the British for the
deterioration in their living standards after the food ration was cut in March 1946 from 1550
to a near-starvation level of 1014 calories per day. Despite significant imports, the ration did
not return to over 1500 calories until May 1948, six months after Douglas had left Germany.
9
There was little he could do to improve matters. It was not possible significantly to increase
agricultural production in the British Zone, which had traditionally obtained much of its food
from other parts of Germany.
10
The failure of the victorious allies to apply a common
economic policy across the whole of Germany meant there was no prospect in the
immediate future of increasing industrial production to generate sufficient exports to pay for
food imports. In the meantime, the British taxpayer had to cover the deficit.
Douglas wrote in similar terms to Alec Bishop and other British army officers of his
impressions of destruction in 1945 when he first visited Berlin,
11
but showed no signs of
being motivated by Montgomery’s ‘missionary idealism’ or by Robertson’s belief that they
were ‘fighting a battle over the soul of Germany.’ In his later memoirs, he described the
situation and his own role in personal terms, rather than expressing his opinions on
geopolitical matters such as the reconstruction of Germany, the future of the British Empire
or the need to ‘rebuild civilisation.’ This chapter contrasts his personal background and aims
in Germany with those of the more ideologically motivated army generals.
5
Robertson, ‘A Miracle? Potsdam 1945 – Western Germany 1965’
Douglas, Years of Command, p362, p350
7
Ian D. Turner, ‘The Apparatus of Occupation Rule’ in Turner (ed.), Reconstruction in Post-War Germany, p360;
‘Profile General Robertson’, The Observer, 8 Dec. 1946
8
Michael Wildt, Der Traum vom Sattwerden; Hunger und Protest, Schwarzmarkt und Selbsthilfe in Hamburg 19451948 (Hamburg: VSA Verlag, 1986), pp37ff; Günter J. Trittel, Hunger und Politik: Die Ernährungskrise in der Bizone
(1945-1949), (Frankfurt & New York: Campus Verlag, 1990), pp251ff
9
Ibid
10
Werner Klatt, ‘Food and Farming in Germany: II. Farming and Land Reform’, International Affairs, Vol.26, No.2,
April 1950, p195. Before the war, areas east of the Oder-Neisse line exported 1m tonnes grain, 1/2m tonnes
potatoes, 1/4m tonnes sugar and 1/4m tonnes meat to the rest of Germany.
11
Douglas, Years of Command, p287
6
76
3.1 ‘A professional airman’
‘The years of the First World War provided us with an experience that was so
extraordinary that it was impossible to understand immediately what it all meant,
and so profound that it was to alter the whole course of our lives.’
12
William Sholto Douglas was born in Oxford in 1893, to a junior branch of an old-established
aristocratic family distantly related to the Marquess of Queensbury. According to Douglas,
the family was ‘swindled’ out of the ownership of estates in the West Indies. His grandfather
inherited little and became a clergyman. His father, who also trained as a clergyman, was
Assistant Chaplain at Merton College, Oxford. Soon after Douglas and his two brothers were
born, his father moved to Siena, in Italy, and then left the church to become a successful art
critic and dealer. He divorced his wife and accepted a position as Professor of Medieval
History in Australia. After returning to Britain, he was appointed Director of the National
Gallery of Ireland, married again twice and, according to Douglas, fathered at least eighteen
children, eight of whom were illegitimate. He emigrated to the United States in 1940,
converted to Roman Catholicism and died in 1951 in Italy.
13
While his father travelled the world, Douglas and his two brothers were brought up by their
mother in relative poverty in Balham, South London, although his father continued to support
them and paid for their education at Tonbridge School.
14
Douglas obtained a classical
scholarship to Lincoln College, Oxford, and, with further support from his father, attended
university for one year before the outbreak of war in 1914. He claimed to have become a
socialist at Tonbridge and Oxford, influenced by an ‘aversion to snobbery’ and sympathy for
the underdog, but, as a serving RAF officer, he was not active in politics until after his
retirement from Germany in 1947, when he accepted a peerage and supported the Labour
Party in the House of Lords.
15
On the outbreak of war in August 1914, Douglas was commissioned in the artillery. He left
for France in November, volunteered as an air observer for the Royal Flying Corps and
12
Douglas, Years of Combat, p340
Vincent Orange, ‘Douglas, (William) Sholto, Baron Douglas of Kirtleside (1893–1969)’, Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2011
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/32876, accessed 12 June 2012],
(henceforward Orange, ‘Douglas’, DNB); Douglas, Years of Combat, pp17-26
14
A leading English public school, though not as prestigious as Eton, Harrow, Winchester or Rugby
15
Orange, ‘Douglas’, DNB; Douglas, Years of Combat, pp26-37
13
77
qualified as a pilot in July 1915. He wrote later that obtaining his wings was ‘one of the
proudest moments that I have ever known in my life.’
16
He was promoted to command a
squadron and was awarded the Military Cross and Distinguished Flying Cross. Casualties
were high, pilots flew without parachutes and mechanical breakdowns were frequent. He
was seriously injured when he hit a horse during take-off and he had to recover in hospital in
Britain before returning to the front in late 1917. His brother trained as an air observer and
was killed in action.
17
Yet, despite the personal dangers, in later years he regretted the
passing of this ‘time of comparative innocence’,
18
when pilots fought each other above and
apparently a stage removed from the mass slaughter of troops on the ground. He ended the
war, still only 24 years old, a lieutenant-colonel and one of the most experienced pilots in the
newly formed RAF.
19
After a short break as a pilot in the embryonic civil aviation industry, Douglas rejoined the
RAF in 1920. He attended the newly formed Air Staff College, where his fellow students
included Charles Portal
20
21
and Keith Park,
and he was one of four RAF officers selected for
the first course at the Imperial Defence College, where he subsequently served as an
instructor. His only overseas posting was from 1929-1932 in Egypt and as area commander
in the Sudan. From 1936 he occupied senior administrative positions in the Air Ministry and
succeeded Keith Park as head of Fighter Command in 1940. Other positions followed, as
head of Middle East Command in December 1942 and Coastal Command in January 1944.
22
Despite his experience and seniority, success at the highest level eluded him. Military
historians have argued that he was on the wrong side in debates over strategy, such as his
advocacy of offensive sweeps over enemy territory in 1941, which resulted in casualties
higher than those incurred during the Battle of Britain for little strategic benefit, and his
support for Churchill’s unsuccessful Aegean campaign in 1943.
23
He was disappointed to be
rejected for the post of Allied commander in South-East Asia due to US opposition, and at
not being offered command of Allied air forces for the invasion of Normandy. When Charles
16
Douglas, Years of Combat, pp92-3
Orange, ‘Douglas’, DNB; Douglas, Years of Combat, p144
Douglas, Years of Command, p11
19
Orange, ‘Douglas’, DNB
20
Chief of the Air Staff from 1940 - 1945
21
Head of Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain
22
Douglas, Years of Command; Orange, ‘Douglas’, DNB
23
Ibid
17
18
78
Portal retired as Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) in 1945, Douglas was one of three candidates
considered to replace him, but was again unsuccessful. He was promoted to the rank of
Marshal of the Royal Air Force, but shared with Arthur Harris, head of Bomber Command,
the dubious distinction of being one of only two officers who attained this most senior rank in
the RAF, without serving as CAS.
24
From August 1945 to January 1946 Douglas served in Germany as Commander-in-Chief of
the British Air Forces of Occupation (BAFO).
25
He claimed later that he did not want the post,
writing that ‘I felt less like going to Germany than to anywhere else’, but he accepted it
because the position required an officer ‘of the most senior rank’, he had previously worked
well with Montgomery and he was curious about the fate of the German air force.
26
The work
did not appear particularly onerous, as RAF and naval commanders in occupied Germany,
unlike the army Corps Commanders, had no civil responsibilities. Douglas was nominally
responsible for the disarmament of the Luftwaffe but left this to his deputy, Philip
Wigglesworth, to manage.
27
The main activities, he recalled later, were difficulties over the
repatriation of Czech and Polish airmen.
28
He was thankful that his responsibilities did not
extend beyond those of an air force commander, disliked the working environment and
resented being increasingly ‘drawn in to the web of international politics.’
29
In January 1946
he heard he would be appointed Military Governor and Commander-in-Chief of all British
forces in Germany, when Montgomery took up his post as Chief of the Imperial General Staff
on 1 May.
30
Meanwhile, he left Germany and returned to the Air Ministry in London.
Robertson wrote to Douglas on 28 February 1946, suggesting he should establish his own
personal organisation as soon as possible, as Montgomery intended to hand over his
personal staff to the new army commander rather than to the new Military Governor,
31
but
Douglas took no direct action, leaving all arrangements to the officials in Germany.
32
He
decided to take three weeks holiday in the United States, to visit his father in New York and
24
Orange, ‘Douglas’, DNB; Douglas, Years of Command, p307
Douglas, Years of Command, p281
Ibid
27
Ibid p285
28
Ibid, pp292-3, pp297-300
29
Ibid, pp305-6. In December 1945 he wrote to his father that: ‘I don’t think you appreciate what an unpleasant life
we lead in Germany at the present time … I won’t enlarge on this, but I loathe [underlined] being here. We live in an
atmosphere of misery and starvation…’
30
Ibid, p308
31
FO 1030/323, letter from Robertson to Douglas, 28 Feb. 1946
32
Douglas, Years of Command, p319
25
26
79
stay in California with the actor, Robert Montgomery, returning to London three days before
leaving for Germany.
33
He complained later ‘more in sorrow than in anger’ that he received
no briefing on his new role and was not sent a copy of Montgomery’s valedictory ‘Notes on
the German Situation’ addressed to Attlee, Bevin and Hynd.
34
It does seem to me that it was an extraordinary state of affairs that such a vitally important
document should have been handed around in London while the man who was most
intimately concerned – the man who was literally on the spot in taking over from
Montgomery – should have been left so much in the dark.
35
This comment is disingenuous. Montgomery’s ‘Notes’ repeated many of the points made in
his earlier memo of 1 February 1946 on ‘The Problem in Germany’ which, though
confidential, was distributed to all Military Government heads of Divisions and army Corps
36
Commanders.
Austen Albu, for example, recently appointed to a position in the Political
Division of the Control Commission, was shown a copy soon after his arrival in Germany.
37
Albu was also given a copy of Montgomery’s ‘Notes’ of 1 May, as he referred to this in a
memo to Robertson dated 19 June 1946.
38
This suggests that, had he wished to do so,
Douglas could have obtained a copy of Montgomery’s ‘Notes’ and could have familiarised
himself with his views on current policy quite easily, by asking Robertson or other members
of his staff. It is possible that, rather than a lack of briefing, he objected to what he
considered to have been a personal slight by Montgomery in sending the memo to the
politicians in London, but not to him.
Douglas’s appointment as Military Governor is surprising, as is his decision to accept the
post, given his limited overseas experience, his intense dislike of working in Germany and
his stated desire not to become involved in issues outside his personal competence, such as
international politics. Despite later denials, he may have been attracted by the status and
prestige and may have seen it as a consolation for earlier disappointments. He claimed later
he did not want to return to Germany, but Montgomery recommended him and Arthur
Tedder, the newly appointed Chief of the Air Staff, persuaded him to accept the post.
33
Ibid, pp312-317
Douglas, Years of Command, p320. Montgomery’s ‘Notes on the German Situation’ 1 May 1946 and covering
letters to Attlee, Bevin and Hynd, are in BLM 170/20-23
35
Douglas, Years of Command, p320
36
IWM BLM 88/7
37
CAC, Albu Papers 13/2, handwritten diary, entry for Sunday 2 Feb 1946
38
CAC, Albu Papers 28/3, memo dated 19 June 1946 on ‘Policy in Germany’ and covering note to Robertson
34
80
Douglas added that after returning to London in January 1946 he had second thoughts and
only finally agreed after a personal meeting with Attlee.
39
I have not found any record of this meeting or other official documents relating to his
appointment, apart from a letter in which Montgomery told Robertson it was ‘fairly certain’
that Douglas would succeed him as Military Governor.
40
This tends to confirm Douglas’
account that Montgomery recommended him for the position, but does not explain why the
government thought him a suitable candidate. General Joseph McNarney, who replaced
Eisenhower as Governor of the US Zone in November 1945, had served as an airman on the
Western Front in the First World War
41
and it may have been thought advisable to follow the
US lead by appointing an air officer rather than an army general to succeed Montgomery.
Douglas’s appointment may also have been intended to improve relations between the
London and German arms of the administration, as Sir Arthur Street, Permanent Secretary
of the newly created Control Office for Germany and Austria (COGA), had previously worked
with him at the Air Ministry.
42
Overall, it would appear he was a safe choice, acceptable to
the Labour Government and to all three armed services in Germany, and able to maintain
good working relations with his US, French and Soviet counterparts and with the Civil
Service administrators in London.
3.2 Conflicting aims
‘There was always this endless stream of problems: the handling of our
international affairs, the supply of food, the health of the people of the country, a host of
economic affairs, education, intelligence and information, local administration and politics,
denazification, disarmament and reparations and refugees and legal affairs.
There was never any shortage of paper work.’
43
Shortly after his appointment as Military Governor, Douglas spoke publicly for the first time,
at the opening of an exhibition in London on ‘Germany under Control’, of his understanding
of British aims:
39
Douglas, Years of Command, pp308-310
FO 1030/323, handwritten letter from Montgomery to Robertson, 27 Jan. 1946
41
Douglas, Years of Command, p321
42
Ibid, pp323-4
43
Douglas, Years of Command, p322
40
81
What are the objects of our occupation of Germany? In the first place we aim to destroy the
military power of Germany and to eradicate Nazi-ism. We must not forget that these objects
rank first in priority. Next we want to see Germany develop a sound sense of democratic
government and social justice, to rebuild her peaceful industries and raise her standard of
44
living to a reasonable level.
This was entirely consistent with British policy as it had been formulated over the previous
year by Montgomery and his generals, in combining the ‘negative’ aspects of demilitarisation
and denazification with the more ‘positive’ policies of economic reconstruction and
democratisation. However, little thought had been given to the cost, and how this could be
justified to the British public. The physical reconstruction of Germany was an objective from
the start of the occupation, to help create order out of chaos and prevent starvation and
disease, but from early 1946, despite Douglas stating in his speech that demilitarisation and
de-nazification were their highest priority, the need to reduce costs led to an increased
emphasis on economic reconstruction for another reason, the hope that German exports
would offset the cost of food imports paid by the British taxpayer.
The government provided conflicting directions. John Hynd, the minister with responsibility
for Germany, was one of the strongest advocates of the view, agreed in principle by all, that
their primary aim was to make another war impossible, through fundamentally changing the
structure of German politics and society. He spoke on the same occasion as Douglas, in
June 1946, in idealistic terms of the importance of their task of creating a free and
democratic Germany. He acknowledged that the occupation would be costly and justified this
by referring to the sacrifices of the previous six years and the need to secure peace, security
and prosperity for their children, arguing that ‘investment for peace is better, and infinitely
cheaper than investment for war.’
45
However Hynd’s views were not shared by the
government as a whole. Hugh Dalton, Chancellor of the Exchequer, was increasingly
concerned at the costs, estimated at £80 million for the 1946-7 financial year.
44
46
Around £70
FO 1039/669, ‘Speech by Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Sir William Sholto Douglas … at the opening of the
Exhibition, “Germany under Control” in London on 7th June 1946’
45
FO 945/533, ‘Speech by Mr. John Hynd, M.P.’ Another copy in FO 1039/669
46
Hugh Dalton, High Tide and After (London: Frederick Muller Ltd, 1962), pp111-3. £80 million was 2% of total
government expenditure for the year of £3,837m, but less than 5% of the ‘Defence and Supply’ budget of £1,667
million and less than the £335 million budgeted for food subsidies in Britain. See also TNA CAB 129/9, Cabinet
memo by Bevin on ‘Policy towards Germany’, 3 May 1946, which stated that £80m was the net cost of civil
administration and food imports, after deducting proceeds from German exports. The cost of the ‘military
establishment’, including pay and allowances of the occupation troops, was a further £65m.
82
million was required to pay for imports, mainly food,
47
which could only be recovered by a
higher level of German exports.
Douglas and his colleagues resolved the conflict between the principle of economic controls,
as agreed at Potsdam to prevent future German re-armament, and the aim of economic
reconstruction, to generate exports to offset the cost of food imports paid by the British
taxpayer, by assuming that reviving the economy would make the Germans more receptive
to democratic ideas and therefore less likely to start another war. In his speech at the
exhibition opening, Douglas claimed that the positive and negative aims of the occupation
were ‘completely interdependent: you cannot re-educate a starving and unemployed
people’.
48
A year later, in June 1947, he made substantially the same points in a speech at
the Imperial Defence College, speaking on his home ground, as a former student and
instructor, in front of an audience of like-minded individuals. He quoted Germans as saying
that: ‘it’s no use talking to us about democratic ideals unless you first fill our bellies’ and
added that ‘leading thoughtful Germans’ were very insistent upon the need to give them,
echoing a phrase that had been used frequently by Montgomery, ‘hope for the future’ [my
italics].
49
He and his audience may have agreed with Dalton that paying to feed their former
enemy was an unwelcome necessity, but by implying agreement with the views of ‘thoughtful
Germans’, Douglas indicated that they shared a common interest. Food was the key to the
situation as without food Germans were unable to work. ‘Short of letting Germans starve to
death’, he concluded, the only solution was ‘to build up German industry to the point where
Germans can pay for their own food by their own exports.’
50
Douglas presented a third reason for economic reconstruction in his lecture, when he
addressed the question of Russian attitudes to Germany. Russia, he said, had
a desire to convert Germany into a Communist state working under their control. They
undoubtedly hope that the wretched conditions and low standard of living in the Western
Zones will turn the eyes of the people towards communism, and that when a united
Germany eventually appears it will be a Communist Germany.
47
51
FO 1030/307, letter from Robertson to Corps Commanders, 1 May 1946
FO 1039/669, speech by Douglas at the Exhibition opening, 7 June 1946
49
FO 1030/170, Commander-in-Chief’s lecture to the Imperial Defence College, 12 June 1947
50
Ibid
51
Ibid
48
83
This comment followed the conventional wisdom shared by many of his colleagues, in
assuming that poor economic conditions would result in higher levels of support for
communism, thereby reinforcing the converse argument he had previously attributed to
Germans, that better living standards were a pre-condition for democracy. Quoting a
common saying, he said that the Russians wished to extract as much as they could in
reparations from Germany, as ‘a cow fed from the west and milked from the East.’
52
No
British Government could accept this ‘in view of the financial strain in which we find
ourselves today.’
53
Douglas ended his speech by saying that he thought it likely that the
division of Germany would persist, despite British attempts to work for unification.
54
For
financial as well as political reasons, British and US support for economic reconstruction had
to be on their terms and therefore limited to the Western Zones.
3.3 Concerns over the death penalty
‘I did not think that the Foreign Secretary or anybody else had any right whatsoever
to tell me what I should do, and that it was up to me to give my decision
according to my conscience and my conscience alone.’
55
The official papers show that Douglas was generally pragmatic in the decisions he took,
following policy agreed by his predecessor and delegating implementation to his deputies. It
could be argued that his unhappiness as Military Governor was partly due to his facing
greater difficulties than Montgomery before and Robertson after him, but in his memoirs he
advanced another explanation, which he described as ‘a matter of conscience’: his concerns
over the use of the death penalty by the Nuremberg Tribunal and British Military Courts.
Once economic reconstruction came to be seen as an essential prerequisite for political
renewal, denazification assumed a lower priority, especially if former Nazis possessed skills
52
Bevin using the same phrase in discussions with US Secretary of State Marshall in early 1947, quoted in Anne
Deighton, ‘Cold-War Diplomacy: British Policy Towards Germany’s Role in Europe, 1945-9’ in Turner (ed.),
Reconstruction in Post-War Germany, p29
53
FO 1030/170, lecture to the Imperial Defence College, 12 June 1947
54
Ibid, ‘Short of the Americans and ourselves clearing out of Germany altogether … I can see no other solution
which we could accept.’
55
Douglas, Years of Command, p337
84
or knowledge that were useful in rebuilding the economy.
56
Douglas later justified a
pragmatic approach towards those who had supported a criminal regime by writing that ‘cries
for vengeance’ had to be discouraged, in order to reduce the cost of the occupation:
I had no particular liking for the Germans as a people, but I felt that it was imperative, in the
position in which I was placed, that I should approach this problem with as broad and as fair
a frame of mind as possible. There was more than enough vindictiveness in the air, and I
felt that there was a very great need for caution over what could all too easily become
vengeance. What we had suffered at the hands of the Germans during the war, and what
we had discovered when we occupied Germany, were enough to encourage the cries for
vengeance, but they had to be stilled if we were to achieve at least the relief of the very
57
great burden on the shoulders of our own people of propping up the Germans.
Douglas’ relatively tolerant attitude towards former members of the Nazi Party may have
been influenced by his self-image as a professional airman and his identification with the
German fighter pilots he had fought against in the First World War, believing that they shared
similar values, such as individual bravery and a ‘swashbuckling attitude to life’. He wrote
favourably about the exploits of both British and German fighter pilots during the war
59
his admiration for ‘the famous German ace Ernst Udet’.
58
and of
They met in the Sudan when Udet
had to make a forced landing after filming wild animals in Kenya. They compared
experiences as fighter pilots on the Western Front and Douglas wrote later that he ‘came to
appreciate [Udet’s] honesty and sincerity.’
60
for feelings of a distinct personal sadness.
Udet’s death in November 1941 gave him ‘cause
61
Together with Hermann Goering and Edward
Milch, Udet was one of three former German First World War pilots responsible for rebuilding
the Luftwaffe in the 1930s.
62
Douglas felt an even greater affinity for the head of the Luftwaffe, Hermann Goering, writing
later that Goering’s ‘experiences in the air service had run along lines that were curiously
parallel to my own.’ Goering was born in 1893, the same year as Douglas, and there were
56
See for example Henry E. Collins, Mining memories and Musings: Autobiography of a Mining Engineer (Ashire
Publishing Ltd, 1985), pp39ff. Collins was a professional mining engineer and the Director of Coal Production in the
British Zone from 1945-7. He wrote in relation to the proposed denazification of ‘lower grade’ former Nazis in
managerial positions in the industry: ‘In November 1945, I was consulted on a list of persons to be arrested as
important Nazis. I was horrified to see a number of names of key men in the coal industry… I was able to have the
names erased from the list because the persons concerned were vital to the recovery of coal production.’
57
Douglas, Years of Command, p325
58
Douglas, Years of Combat, p111ff
59
Douglas, Years of Command, p154
60
Ibid, pp24-26
61
Ibid, p154
62
Ibid, p48
85
similarities in their family background. In 1915, Douglas wrote, Goering was ‘doing exactly
the same kind of work I was from across the other side of the lines.’
63
Douglas speculated
what might have happened had he shot him down in one of their many encounters:
Whatever his subsequent crimes, Goering as a young man was undoubtedly a brave and
good fighter pilot. I have wondered many times about the extent to which the course of
history might have been changed if, in one of our encounters in the air at this time, I had
managed to draw a bead on him long enough to finish him off. It would later have saved the
world, and me, a lot of trouble many years later.
64
These remarks about Goering did not imply that Douglas sympathised with the Nazis, or with
Goering’s conduct of the war in the air, but the fate of someone who had performed a similar
role to his was, as he wrote later, ‘almost of personal concern to me.’
65
Other British military
commanders showed similar concerns for German generals they had fought against.
General Horrocks, for example, visited Rundsted in prison after the war ‘to fight some of the
battles over again with him’
66
and Alec Bishop took steps to improve living conditions in Werl
prison where Kesselring and other German generals were held.
67
As the British member of the Allied Control Council, Douglas had to hear appeals for
clemency and mitigation of the death sentences imposed by the Nuremberg War Crimes
Tribunal, including that on Goering. He took ‘the strongest exception’ to being told by Bevin
that he could not use his discretion but had to follow instructions from the government in
London.
68
In particular he objected to being prevented from following his conscience, when
German generals were sentenced to death on the basis that they had accepted orders,
instead of following their conscience. The dilemma he faced was especially acute in the case
of Goering. Douglas justified his decision to confirm the death sentence on the basis that
Goering had almost certainly known of one atrocity which he felt, as a former pilot, affected
him personally – the shooting of British airmen after their escape from the POW camp,
Stalag Luft III – but he still felt uneasy, writing later that:
63
Douglas, Years of Combat, pp141-2
Ibid, p326
Douglas, Years of Command, p330
66
Horrocks, A Full Life, p185
67
IWM, Bishop papers, AB2, three letters from Kesselring to Bishop, dated 1948 and 1950
68
Douglas, Years of Command, p337. Douglas’ account in his memoirs is supported by FO 800/466, exchange of
telegrams with Bevin, 5-8 Oct. 1946, FO 1060/1388, correspondence between Douglas and Hynd, Aug.-Oct. 1946.
64
65
86
Twenty-eight years before, Goering and I, as young fighter pilots, had fought each other in
the cleaner atmosphere of the air. As I spoke the words that meant for Goering an
inevitable death sentence, I could not help feeling, for all my loathing of what he had
become, the strongest revulsion that I should have to be one of those so directly concerned
with it.
69
When he heard that Goering had committed suicide by taking poison, his reaction was not
that Goering had evaded punishment, but some ‘slight relief’ at the news. Commenting on
the decision of the Allied Control Council not to investigate further, he added: ‘I was only too
glad to be finished with the whole sordid business.’
70
In addition to war criminals tried at Nuremberg, Douglas had to make the final decision in
‘hundreds of cases’ tried by British Military courts, where those sentenced to death included
not only concentration camp guards and other war criminals, but Polish displaced persons
who had shot and killed Germans in revenge attacks or armed robbery after the war, a
‘German peasant’ ordered by his senior officer to shoot a British parachutist, and a British
soldier who had strangled his German girlfriend.
71
In these cases he was allowed to use his
discretion and commuted most of the sentences to life imprisonment. He claimed later that
his experiences in Germany led to his conviction that the death penalty should be abolished,
writing that:
It is one thing to kill a fellow human being in the heat of battle, but these cold, judicial
executions were, so far as I was concerned, an entirely different matter.
72
Colleagues who worked with him in Germany confirmed his account. Alec Bishop wrote later
that Douglas found the use of the death penalty ‘particularly repugnant.’
73
Like many others at the time, Douglas did not fully comprehend the true nature and extent of
the crimes committed during twelve years of Nazi dictatorship in Germany and Europe. As a
result, he focussed on what he believed he understood: his formative experiences as a pilot
over the Western front, his knowledge as a ‘professional airman’, his conscience and
understanding of individual morality, and a concern for the fate of those with whom he could
69
Douglas, Years of Command, p344
Ibid, p347
71
Ibid, p359
72
Ibid, p360
73
Bishop, Look Back with Pleasure, p127. See also Lord Pakenham, Born to Believe, (London, Jonathan Cape,
1953), pp177-8
70
87
identify, such as British POWs shot after escaping from Stalag Luft III, or a former German
fighter pilot such as Hermann Goering. He confirmed all the sentences passed by the
Nuremberg Tribunal,
74
despite his personal reservations, but felt unprepared and unqualified
for a role as Military Governor that included the power of life or death over individuals who
had performed a similar role to his in wartime, or for whom he felt some personal sympathy.
3.4 Criticism at home and allegations of corruption
‘There was something so inexcusable about the shameful criticism that was expressed of us
by our own people at home at that time, and I can still feel the anger that it caused in my own
75
mind. It was all so cheap and shabby.’
A few days after Douglas arrived in Germany, the Conservative MP Godfrey Nicholson
expressed grave concerns in Parliament over ‘alarming allegations of corruption’ among
Military Government staff.
76
The Prime Minister asked the Chiefs of Staff to investigate and
they in turn referred the matter to the Control Office in London (COGA) and to Robertson.
77
It
emerged that Nicholson’s source was a certain Captain R.C. Tarlton, a junior Military
Government officer whom Nicholson knew personally. When asked for a written statement,
Tarlton could only provide vague and imprecise allegations, such as unnamed Control
Commission officers obtaining ‘luxury goods’ from German manufacturers in exchange for
coal allocations, and others who used pre-war connections with German businesses to make
‘gains unheard of in the normal business.’
78
Public Safety Branch, the Control Commission
internal police force, investigated further and produced a report in October 1946 which
dismissed most of the allegations.
79
Robertson wrote that: ‘It is quite clear to me that the
majority of the allegations made by Tarlton are based on chatter and groundless rumour.’
80
At the end of December Hynd minuted the Prime Minister, a little more circumspectly, that
there was ‘little substance in the charges’ but he was setting up a new organisation under a
74
Douglas, Years of Command, p330, p343
Douglas, Years of Command, p356
HC Deb 10 May 1946 vol. 422 c1417
77
FO 936/743, letter from Hollis (for Chiefs of Staff) to Hynd, 14 May 1946
78
FO 1030/308, Statement by Ralph C. Tarlton, 17 June 1946
79
FO 936/743, 12 page report dated 16 Oct. 1946, by T.E. Harris, Public Safety Branch, CID, on ‘Alleged Illicit
Dealings by Military Government Officers’
80
FO 936/743, letter from Robertson to Jenkins, 31 Oct. 1946
75
76
88
‘senior detective officer from Scotland Yard’ to continue investigations into ‘alleged
malpractices by the staff of the Control Commission in Germany.’
81
This was the first of many allegations that extended to the highest levels of Military
Government, including some of Douglas’ closest colleagues in the RAF.
82
The evidence
which has survived in the archives is not sufficient to judge with any degree of certainty
whether they were exaggerated, or if they represented the tip of an iceberg, with extensive
corruption hidden from public view. The research conducted for this study suggests that,
despite official denials, corruption was widespread, but not to the extent claimed by reports
in the popular press or by the Conservative opposition in Parliament, who used the issue as
a convenient stick to beat the government. A senior official at COGA was probably correct
when he minuted on the official report into Tarlton’s claims that:
The upshot has been to reveal a number of things which, to use General Robertson’s
words, ‘are not as they should be.’ The matters revealed are very different from the
sensational happenings at which Mr. Godfrey Nicholson seemed to be hinting in his speech
th
to the House on 10 May. Even so, however, there is little in the report … to inspire any
great confidence.
83
Allegations included the theft of jewels and cash in May 1945 from Schloss Glücksburg,
84
thefts of paintings and antiques from Villa Hugel, the former home of the Krupp family
converted into the headquarters of the North German Coal Control,
85
and a twelve page
internal report into illegal trading by British and US officers, produced in July 1946 by the
Economics Information section of the Control Commission.
86
The report alleged that investigations into the whereabouts of precious stones and metals
with an estimated value of £250 million, formerly owned by the Nazi government, had
revealed large scale black market activities in stolen works of art, looted museum pieces
81
FO 936/743, memo from Hynd to Prime Minister, 9 Dec. 1946
For a highly critical overview of alleged corruption in the British Zone see Patricia Meehan, A Strange Enemy
People (London: Peter Owen Publishers, 2001), pp113-132
83
FO 936/743, comment on the COGA departmental minute sheet initialled M.D. Deputy Secretary [Maurice Dean],
29 Nov. 1946.
84
Meehan, A Strange Enemy People, p119; FO 1032/1370, letter from Tyler to Chief of Staff, 26 Jan. 1949, ‘Claim
by Princess Feodora of Schaumburg-Lippe’
85
Meehan, A Strange Enemy People, p119; FO 1067/192-3, ‘Deficiencies at Villa Hugel’
86
FO 936/741, report on ‘Illegal trading in Germany’, by A.W. Bechter, 17 July 1946
82
89
87
from across Europe, drugs and narcotics .
Two senior officers from the Metropolitan Police
were sent to Germany to investigate and recommended that:
There is a real need for an organisation to deal with serious crime committed by British Civil
and Military personnel. Such crimes include serious ‘Black Market’ offences and the
unlawful disposal and removal of very valuable property from Germany.
88
A joint British and US exercise codenamed ‘Operation Sparkler’ had some success in finding
a small proportion of the missing precious stones and metals, to the value of £435,642.
89
The final report compiled in April 1947 showed a small increase in the value of materials
traced in the British Zone. Results were better in the US Zone, locating property to the value
of over $7 million.
90
While it is difficult to judge the true extent of major black market activities, there is no doubt
that small-scale illegal trading was widespread among British military and Control
Commission personnel. Paul Chambers, Head of the Control Commission Finance
Department, estimated this cost the Exchequer £41 million,
91
half the estimated net cost of
the occupation to the taxpayer in 1946-7. British personnel bought goods cheaply in staff
canteens and NAAFI shops, which were reserved for their use only, and sold them on the
black market for German Reichsmarks (RM).
92
At first, Reichsmarks were accepted in British
canteens and shops and could be used to buy more goods, or converted into sterling and
sent home as money orders. For example, a packet of cigarettes, which cost 1-2 shillings (510p) in a British staff canteen, could be sold for 160RM on the black market, worth £4 at the
official rate of exchange of 40RM to £1. The practice was partially stopped by issuing British
army forces vouchers for use in NAAFI shops but, until currency reform in May 1948, British
soldiers and Control Commission staff could live well, by buying goods and services cheaply
from the Germans and paying for them with cigarettes sent from home or bought from the
NAAFI with vouchers.
93
87
Ibid, pp6-8
FO 936/741, report by Superintendent Thorp, Metropolitan Police CID, 27 Sept. 1946
89
FO 936/741, letter from Robertson to Dean, 10 Jan. 1947 and attached ‘Interim liquidation report’
90
FO 936/741, Operation “Sparkler” Final Report, 15 April 1947
91
Paul Chambers, ‘Post-war German Finances’, International Affairs, Vol.24, No.3 (July 1948), pp364-377
92
Ibid; See also Daily Mirror, p2, ‘Viewpoint’, 11 July 1946
93
Ibid. Illegal black and ‘grey’ market trading was widespread in Britain, as well as Germany, for at least ten years
after the war, due to shortages of supplies, rationing and price controls. See Mark Roodhouse, Black Market Britain,
1939-1955 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)
88
90
Allegations of corrupt practices among military and Control Commission staff were linked in
parliamentary debates
with more general criticisms of mismanagement, muddle,
deteriorating conditions in Germany, and above all, the cost to the British taxpayer. The
Conservative opposition leapt on ill-judged remarks by Hugh Dalton in his budget speech in
April 1946, which they took as an open invitation to criticise his Labour Party colleague and
minister for Germany, John Hynd. Dalton announced that expenditure on Germany and
Austria for the coming year was estimated at £80 million, including the net cost of civilian
staff, supplies and imports of food for the German population. This was a ‘large figure’,
Dalton said, and
So far, we are getting disappointingly little in return, and that is a matter which may have to
be probed in the House one of these days. I am quite sure that the British taxpayer cannot,
and should not, much longer be expected to go on paying, on this scale, what are, in effect,
reparations to Germany. Speaking as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I grudge the money.
94
Responding to the Chancellor, Anthony Eden picked up immediately on the idea of ‘paying
reparations to Germany’, adding that he wished to know more and the situation had to be
remedied.
95
In two debates called by the Opposition, on 10 May and 29 July 1946,
Conservative front bench spokesmen quoted Dalton’s budget speech and launched personal
attacks on Hynd.
96
One called him a ‘minnow floating about amongst the whales’, referring to
the difference in size and stature between Hynd and the rather larger Foreign Secretary,
Ernest Bevin.
97
Hynd received some support from Labour backbenchers,
98
but little from his
party leaders. Attacks on the Control Commission in Parliament continued throughout 1946
and 1947, while Douglas was Military Governor.
99
In the meantime, the press latched on to the story and sent reporters to Germany to
investigate. On 8 July 1946 a full page article appeared in the Daily Mirror under the headline
‘£160 million a Year – to teach the Germans to despise us.’
100
It purported to be the result of
a seven week investigation into ‘widespread racketeering in the British zone of Germany’
94
HC Deb 09 April 1946 vol. 421 c1818
Ibid, c1849
HC Deb 10 May 1946 vol. 422 cc1350-447; HC Deb 29 July 1946 vol. 426 cc526-640
97
HC Deb 29 July 1946 vol. 426 cc529-530
98
For example from James Hudson, (Ealing), HC Deb 09 April 1946 vol. 421 c1959
99
HC Deb 22 October 1946 vol 427 cc1487-1623; HC Deb 14 November 1946 vol. 430 cc238-371; HC Deb 05
February 1947 vol. 432 cc1775-916
100
Daily Mirror, p2, 8 July 1946
95
96
91
based on discussions with a large number of army and Control Commission officers. The
article was written in a sensationalist style, with the tone set in the first paragraph:
Lavish supplies of inexpensive drinks and easy, but dirty, money are causing widespread
demoralisation and corruption among British personnel in Germany today at the expense of
the British taxpayer’s pocket and Britain’s prestige.
101
Articles later in the week placed the issue of the cost of the occupation in the wider context
of the Allied Council of Foreign Ministers meeting in Paris to discuss the future of
Germany,
102
reporting Bevin’s ‘warning’ that if no agreement was reached, ‘Britain would be
obliged so to organise her own zone economically that no continued burden would fall on the
British taxpayer.’
103
Press criticism of the Control Commission continued throughout 1946 and 1947, in upmarket liberal journals and newspapers such as the Manchester Guardian and New
Statesman as well as in the popular press.
104
On 8 July 1947 the lead article on the front
page of the Daily Mail raised the allegations of corruption to a new level, by naming Douglas
and three of the most senior RAF officers in Germany as ‘assisting inquiries’ into the
disappearance of old master paintings, Gobelin tapestries, antique furniture, gold and silver
plate and cutlery, carpets, china and glassware, from the home of the aristocratic
Schaumburg-Lippe family, Schloss Bückeburg, which had been requisitioned at the end of
the war to serve as headquarters of the British Air Forces of Occupation (BAFO).
105
The
allegations affected Douglas directly, as he was the senior officer commanding BAFO from
July 1945 to January 1946 and had been based at Bückeburg.
106
In his memoirs, Douglas wrote that ‘vindictive suggestions and personal allegations about
looting [were] levelled against even those of us who were in the most senior
appointments.’
107
He commissioned a report by ‘an officer from Scotland Yard’ which, he
claimed, ‘proved conclusively the falsity of the newspaper attacks’.
101
108
The report, by
Ibid
Daily Mirror, p1, ‘Bevin tells Russia: Germany costing Britain too much’, 11 July 1946
103
Daily Mirror, p1, ‘Bevin insists “We can’t borrow more to aid Germany”’, 12 July 1946
104
FO 371/55578, press cutting from the Manchester Guardian, 21 Sep 1946; Thies, ‘What is going on in
Germany?’, p42
105
Richard Greenhough, ‘Spotlight on a prince’s fabulous castle’, Daily Mail, p1, 8 July 1947
106
Ibid
107
Douglas, Years of Command, p356
108
Ibid
102
92
Inspector Hayward, who conducted the earlier ‘Operation Sparkler’ investigations, has
survived in the archives. It confirmed there was not ‘a shred of evidence’ Douglas ‘ever
removed a single article’ from Germany.
109
According to the report and related documents,
he and other senior British officials received items from Schloss Bückeburg which they used
to furnish their official residences, but ‘with the exception of very minor losses of small
articles which can be safely attributed to normal domestic wastage or petty pilfering by staff,
all was intact and could be accounted for.
110
The report, however, stated that a large quantity
of material was still missing and, although an RAF investigator had attributed this to petty
theft and ‘souvenir hunting’, in Hayward’s view it had probably been subject to large scale
removals.
111
The most serious allegation related to Douglas’ predecessor as Commander of British Air
Forces in Germany, Sir Arthur Coningham. According to the report, Coningham had
arranged for an ‘unknown quantity’ of silver, porcelain and carpets from Schloss Bückeburg
to be flown to his villa in Cannes, in July 1945, some of which was returned to Germany in
August 1945 and some late in 1947, but, Hayward added: ‘we have no means of
ascertaining whether all that was originally taken was in fact returned’.
112
An earlier interim
report by Hayward alleged that 38 chests of silver had been removed from the Schloss to a
‘farmhouse’ on the estate that Coningham used as his living quarters. Sixteen chests of
silver were given to the RAF Welfare branch and made available for use by senior officers
and messes. A further quantity of silver and other valuables was packed and ‘accompanied’
Coningham in his Dakota aeroplane when he left Germany for Cannes. When he arrived he
found he had more than he needed, so the silver was re-packed and driven in his RollsRoyce car to his house in Brussels, from where another officer collected it and returned it to
the collection held by Welfare at Bückeburg. At no point, Hayward added, was any inventory
made or record kept of the material.
113
Hayward reported that Douglas told him in July 1947, when he started his enquiries, that
while neither he nor two other senior RAF officers had received any property other than that
109
FO 936/653, T Hayward, Assistant Inspector General, Public Safety Branch, final report on ‘Property of Prince
Wolrad of Schaumburg-Lippe missing from Schloss Buckeburg’, 30 June 1948
110
Ibid
111
Ibid
112
Ibid
113
FO 1032/1461, Hayward, interim report, 30 Dec. 1947
93
‘lawfully requisitioned’ for use in their official residences, Coningham was ‘open to criticism’
for taking material to his house in Cannes.
114
Douglas added he was sure this had been
done ‘in good faith’ and all would be returned in due course,
115
but his comment could be
interpreted as an indication to Hayward of the line his inquiry should take. A few days later,
Douglas received a letter from Coningham in which he acknowledged that he still had
material from Bückeburg in his house, ‘Villa Rosalie in the South of France’, and now wished
to ‘return sundry articles of German furniture and equipment which were sent down there at
the end of the war.’
116
The matter ended tragically. In January 1948, before Hayward completed his final report,
Coningham vanished without trace when his aircraft, including all crew and passengers,
crashed into the sea near Bermuda.
117
Robertson was approached by the chief of the RAF
Police, who asked if he could inform Lady Coningham, who was naturally distressed at her
husband’s sudden death, that ‘as far as Sir Arthur is concerned, the allegations are without
foundation’.
118
Robertson declined the request, replying that while he hoped this would be
the case, it would be wrong to prejudge the outcome of the report.
119
The files show that there had been disagreements dating back to 1945 between the RAF
and local Control Commission branches, nominally responsible for the property. It was
possibly unfortunate for the RAF officers that Prince Wolrad, the owner of the estate, had
been a member of the paramilitary Stahlhelm organisation which merged with the Nazi SA
after Hitler came to power in 1933.
120
He was therefore subject to automatic arrest at the
start of the occupation and management of his property was transferred to the Control
Commission’s Property Control Branch, pending denazification proceedings. According to
Hayward, the branch ‘did in fact take charge of his financial affairs but were prevented from
exercising control of the personal property by the attitude of the R.A.F. who claimed that it
114
Ibid
Ibid
FO 1032/1371, letter from Coningham to Douglas, 30 July 1947
117
Vincent Orange, Coningham, A Biography of Air Marshal Sir Arthur Coningham KCB, KBE, DSO, MC, DFC, AFC
(London: Methuen, 1990), p250
118
FO 1032/1461, letter from de Putron to Robertson, 10 Feb. 1948
119
FO 1032/1461, letter from Westropp, who was dealing with the case for Robertson, to de Putron, 27 Feb. 1948
120
FO 1032/1371, memo from Petterson, Regional Economic Officer to Lingham, Acting Regional Commissioner,
13 July 1947, enclosing ‘Report on the Estate of Prince Wolrad at Schaumburg-Lippe as at 7 July 1947’ by E.S.
Hawarth, Property Control Branch; FO 1032/1370, memo from Goff to Parker, 8 July 1947 ‘Prince Wolrad’s Estate
in Schaumburg-Lippe’
115
116
94
had been properly requisitioned for their use.’
121
A report by a Property Control Officer dated
7 July 1947, the day before the Daily Mail article appeared, was highly critical of the RAF,
122
naming several senior officers including Douglas and Coningham.
Files on the refurbishment of Douglas’ official residence, Schloss Ostenwalde, formerly used
by Montgomery, include a receipt for 72 items of silver and furniture from Bückeburg, and for
a small number of items requisitioned from other stately homes.
123
There is no evidence that
any material was taken for his personal use, but Douglas and his wife appeared to have a
taste for grand living that was in contrast with the dislike for pomp and ceremony he later
claimed in his memoirs.
124
A letter from the brigadier responsible stated that redecoration
had to be of the highest standard as ‘visiting royalty will be entertained at the schloss.’
swimming pool was required and provided by army engineers.
126
125
A
A large quantity of furniture
was also ordered, to the designs of a Mr Dohler in Berlin, who had worked for other British
officials. Wildfowling was arranged on a nearby lake and two guns reserved for Douglas and
‘visiting VIPs’, roads to the residence were repaired, but arrangements to construct a new
chimney and open fireplace in the library had to be postponed due to other building
priorities.
127
The evidence available is far from complete, but suggests that, while there is no reason to
believe that Douglas exploited the situation for his personal gain or removed any items of
value from Germany, he appears to have known of other senior officers who did so and did
little to stop it. He also appears to have had little regard for official procedures in his own
dealings. When he complained that Dohler had not been paid for furniture ordered from him,
Paul Chambers, head of Finance Division, wrote a terse reply suggesting he should have
followed ‘normal channels’:
121
FO 936/653, Hayward, final report, 30 June 1948
FO 1032/1371, ‘Report on the Estate of Prince Wolrad at Schaumburg-Lippe as at 7 July 1947’
123
FO 1030/151, receipt for 72 items of silverware and furniture ‘taken’ [crossed out and replaced by hand with
‘requisitioned’] by Lady Douglas on 25 Sept. 1946. Also receipts for a painting from Schloss Bückeburg, and a
receipt for pictures from Villa Hugel.
124
Douglas, Years of Command, p318
125
FO 1030/151, letter from Brigadier A/Q to HQ BAOR and others on ‘Military Governor’s residence’, 9 May 1946
126
FO 1030/171, note expressing satisfaction for the hard work done by the sappers on the swimming pool at
Ostenwalde, 23 June 1947
127
FO 1030/151; FO 1030/171
122
95
There is in this country, as at home, a regular procedure for the authorisation and payment
of work, the cost of which has to be borne by the public purse and where that procedure is
not followed delay and irregularity is likely to occur.
128
More generally, it would appear that corruption, petty theft and, in some cases, large scale
illegal activities were widespread in parts of the military forces of occupation and the Control
Commission. On the other hand, from 1946 onwards, the Control Commission branches
responsible for establishing and enforcing controls appear to have become reasonably
effective and were prepared to investigate cases at the highest levels, with support from
politicians in London. Inspector Hayward’s report did not result in further prosecutions, but
was shown to Lord Henderson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, who
commented that:
Mr Hayward’s report makes very disturbing reading. R.A.F. administration is shewn to be
casual and negligent and to say the least, there is an atmosphere of irresponsibility about
the whole business. It is a pity the enquiry could not be carried to a successful
129
conclusion.
The worst abuses occurred in the chaotic conditions of 1945, before the Control Commission
was fully established in Germany. By 1946, issuing receipts and compiling inventories of
items requisitioned appeared to have become standard practice.
130
Property Control Branch,
continued to compile inventories of material from Schloss Bückeburg and attempted to trace
missing items until 1949.
131
In January 1948, Robertson, now Military Governor, refused a
request from the Chief of RAF Police to suspend Hayward’s enquiry ‘until every effort has
been made to trace the bulk of this property and to bring to book any who may be
responsible for the disappearances of large quantities of it.’
132
It proved impossible to
recover material stolen more than two years earlier, but the corruption issue, which had
tainted Douglas’ Military Governorship, appeared to have been brought under control.
128
FO 1030/151, letter from Chambers to Douglas, 7 Oct. 1946
FO 936/653, note from Lord Henderson to Strang, 31 July 1948
Lady Douglas, for example, issued an official receipt for the 72 items she requested from Bückeburg on 25 Sept.
1946.
131
FO 1046/201, ‘Report for Director, Property Control Branch relative to claim for compensation for missing items’
by E.S. Haworth, 2 March 1949
132
FO 1032/1461, letter from Robertson to O’Rorke, Inspector General, Public Safety, 2 Jan. 1948
129
130
96
3.5 Conclusion
Douglas left Germany on 1 November 1947. Earlier in the year in May, following press
reports that he was going to resign, he wrote to Bevin that, rather than going when times
were tough, ‘as a rat leaving a supposedly sinking ship’, he was prepared to stay as long as
Bevin wished.
133
In June, however, Attlee and Bevin agreed he should go and be replaced
by Robertson, who had turned down an earlier offer from Montgomery of an appointment as
Quartermaster General, on a tacit understanding that in due course he would be promoted to
Military Governor.
134
There was no suggestion in the files that the decision was influenced by the Schloss
Bückeburg, or other allegations. Pakenham, who replaced Hynd as Minister for Germany in
April 1947, had a high regard for Douglas and recommended he be given a peerage. The
recommendation was endorsed by Bevin, on the grounds that it would provide a clear
demonstration of the government’s support for the Control Commission and so improve staff
morale. Moreover, as a Labour Party supporter, Douglas could be useful in the House of
Lords.
135
He was enobled, as Lord Kirtleside, in the 1948 New Year Honours. In March 1949,
following the nationalisation of civil aviation, he was appointed Chairman of BEA, (British
European Airways), where he remained for fifteen years and was considered one of the most
successful chairmen of a nationalised industry, overseeing the airline’s growth from 750,000
passengers in 1949 to 5.6 million in 1964.
136
Sholto Douglas illustrates some of the contrasts in the British occupation. He tried to improve
living conditions for the German population
137
and fulfilled his responsibilities as Military
Governor to the best of his abilities, despite his evident personal dislike of the job. At the
same time, if not directly involved, he turned a blind eye to illegal activities undertaken by
some of his colleagues, who exploited the chaotic situation in Germany for their own benefit.
He did not share the ‘missionary idealism’ of Montgomery and the army generals, nor their
idealistic vision of the British Empire as a force for good in the world, but pursued pragmatic
policies to reduce the cost of the occupation to the British taxpayer and, so far as he could,
133
FO 936/425, handwritten letter from Douglas to Bevin, 15 May 1947
FO 936/425, memo from Bevin to Attlee, 20 June 1947
135
FO 936/425, memo from Bevin to Prime Minister, 6 Oct. 1947
136
Orange, ‘Douglas’, DNB
137
See for example letters from Douglas on housing conditions in the Zone in FO1030/188, to Deputy Military
Governor (Robertson), 3 July 1946, Service chiefs, 5 Oct. 1946 and McCreery, 17 Nov. 1946
134
97
promote economic revival. As the British member of the Allied Control Council, he confirmed
the death sentence imposed on Hermann Goering and other Nazi leaders condemned to
death at Nuremberg, but had doubts about the legality of the proceedings and later
supported the abolition of capital punishment.
The issue of corruption among British military and Control Commission personnel has been
covered at some length in this chapter, but this should not imply that theft and looting by the
British in Germany was comparable to earlier wartime looting on a far greater scale, by
Germans in Nazi occupied Europe, or to the theft and looting of Jewish property within
Germany. However, the issue of corruption during the British occupation is important for two
reasons. Firstly, the debate in the House of Commons in May 1946 marked the start of a
period of transition, in which the British in Germany lost the moral high ground, not in their
own eyes, but in the eyes of many of those at home, and in the eyes of Germans who read
the articles in British newspapers which criticised the occupation. It was difficult to ask
Germans to emulate the British democratic ‘way of life’ when some prominent Britons
appeared so obviously not to practice what they preached. Secondly, it provides a different
perspective, which contrasts with the narrative presented by Montgomery, Robertson and
Bishop, of a benevolent occupation that contributed to a democratic and prosperous West
Germany. That may have been the outcome when viewed from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s
but, to many observers in Britain in 1946 and 1947, the occupation appeared corrupt,
muddled, poorly managed and, despite good intentions, likely to sow the seeds of a third
world war.
138
This study suggests that both were correct to some degree and one view does
not necessarily exclude the other.
Robertson continued to issue the occasional exhortation to his staff, such as his speech on
31 July 1947 reminding them why they were in Germany,
139
but after Dalton’s budget speech
in April, the Commons debates in May and July 1946 and criticism in the press, the
occupation was perceived by many in Britain to be part of the problem, not the solution.
Military Government policy remained the same, but the emphasis changed, from staying in
Germany as long as necessary to change German culture and society, to reducing costs,
138
HC Deb 05 February 1947 vol. 432 cc1775-916, opening speech by the Conservative spokesman, Richard Law,
in the Adjournment debate on Germany
139
FO 1030/329, ‘Verbatim notes of speech by Deputy Military Governor to Staff’, 31 July 1947, in which he told
them they were ‘the Empire builders … the Empire of true democracy’.
98
provided this could be done without chaos, communism or a Nazi revival. Despite this
change in emphasis, many idealistic individuals remained in Germany and did what they
could to further the original aims for which they believed Britain had fought the war and
established the occupation. The next three chapters discuss four civilian administrators who,
in different ways, promoted their own concept of democracy and political renewal in
Germany.
99
Part II
Political renewal:
Four civilian diplomats and administrators
100
4
Harold Ingrams: ‘Trying to beat the swastika into the parish
pump’: July 1945 – August 1946
‘We are trying to beat the swastika into the parish pump
and the parish council does not go to war.’
1
Harold Ingrams, date unknown, probably 1930s
2
Harold Ingrams was a former colonial official who was appointed head of the Administration
and Local Government (ALG) branch of the British Control Commission for Germany. He
and his colleagues in the branch believed that it was not sufficient to abolish Nazi structures
and practices and return to the pre-1933 system of local government in Germany; Weimar
democracy was fundamentally flawed and had to be changed, as it had not prevented the
Nazi seizure of power. Ingrams believed that British democracy was the best in the world,
and the only practical way to reform German local government was to replace it with as
much as possible of the British system, as he perceived it.
1
Churchill Archives Centre, Ingrams Papers (henceforward IP) 1/1, lecture on ‘Regional and Local Government in
Germany: Now and the Future’, Feb. 1946
2
Photograph from G. Rex Smith, ‘"Ingrams Peace", Ḥaḍramawt, 1937-40. Some Contemporary Documents’,
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol.12, No.1, (April, 2002), p2
101
Ingrams’ attempt to impose structural administrative reforms was not typical of British policy
3
4
in other areas and has been considered a failure by historians, but the arguments he used
to justify the attempt are relevant to a study of British aims in occupied Germany, as they
provide a clear example of how idealistic notions of the British Empire as a force for good in
the world, and a belief in the intrinsic superiority of the British ‘way of life’, influenced
occupation practice in at least one important area – local government and the promotion of
democracy – as well as permeating the rhetoric of those at the top of the administration.
5
Ingrams’ perception of a robust parish democracy in Britain was similar in some respects to
that of Sidney and Beatrice Webb and their successors at the London School of Economics
(LSE). The Webbs believed that an ‘extra-legal democracy’ had been established in some
localities in Britain by the early nineteenth century, and regretted that this model had not
been extended more widely in the 1830s, when municipal boroughs were reformed and rural
6
parishes ceased to be an effective unit of local government. However, Ingrams had no
practical experience of local government and his application of the British model to Germany
was heavily influenced by his experience of imperial rule, a textbook understanding of
classical democracy and a nostalgic view of the rural British parish he may have acquired
from his clergyman father. As a result, he attempted to impose an antiquated perception of
British ‘parish pump’ village democracy on post-war Germany. He had an idealistic view of a
leisured class of individuals meeting together after attending Church on Sunday to discuss
and resolve their problems. He believed that independent ‘men of goodwill’ should take
responsibility for public works and activities in their communities, such as keeping the streets
clean, rather than depending on political parties to represent their views, or relying on
professional officials appointed by the state.
7
3
In Education and Press policy and, most notably, the creation of new constitutions for the Länder and
subsequently for the Federal Republic, the British abolished Nazi structures and practices, but were reluctant to
impose structural reforms, preferring to leave the initiative to the Germans, offer what they considered to be
constructive advice, and reserve the right to block or veto measures they disapproved of.
4
E.g.Wolfgang Rudzio, Die Neuordnung des Kommunalwesens in der Britischen Zone (Stuttgart: Deutsche VerlagsAnstalt, 1968); Reusch, Deutsches Berufsbeamtentum
5
This study focusses on British motivation, aims and intentions. It does not attempt a full discussion of local
government reform in post-war Germany. This would require a discussion of the tradition of German local and
regional self-government, dating back to the reforms of Freiherr von Stein in the early nineteenth century, the
relationship between local government and the state, the position and function of the Civil Service and the role of
the political parties, all of which are beyond the scope of this thesis.
6
Sidney and Beatrice Webb, The Parish and the County (London: Frank Cass, 1963). First published in 1906
7
Ingrams’ views were similar in some ways to those of Ralf Dahrendorf and German Sonderweg historians of the
1960s and 1970s, who attributed the ‘pathological’ political developments in Germany in the twentieth century to a
supposed failure to develop a strong ‘civil society’ and culture of voluntary association, as occurred in nineteenth
102
The arguments Ingrams used to justify his proposed reforms – the intrinsic superiority of
British democracy and his colonial experience of introducing it overseas – did not convince
members of the German Working Parties convened to discuss his proposals. They agreed
with many of his aims, but disagreed with his methods. Most of his specific reforms were
never fully implemented or were rolled back in later years. Yet, despite this apparent failure,
arguably these early attempts at democratic reform were part of a successful ‘learning
8
process’, which resulted in the progressive democratisation and liberalisation of post-war
German politics and society. A short-term failure, by promoting debate and dialogue,
contributed to long-term success.
4.1 Harold Ingrams: colonial administrator
‘My main experience and interests lie in the Middle East’
9
Ingrams’ personal background was similar to that of Field-Marshal Montgomery and
Generals Robertson and Bishop. He was born in 1897, the same year as Bishop and one
year later than Robertson. His father was a clergyman and assistant master at Shrewsbury
School.
10
He fought and was wounded in France in the First World War. He joined the
Colonial Service in 1919 and was posted to Zanzibar, Mauritius and Arabia, where he served
with great distinction.
11
In 1936 he brokered a peace agreement between warring Bedouin
tribes in Southern Yemen, which is still known as the ‘Ingrams Peace.’
12
During the war he
served in various senior diplomatic posts in the Middle East, in Aden and the southern
century Britain. Jose Harris has offered a critique of this view from a British perspective, highlighting the exclusion of
various minority groups from mainstream British society and the variability in the use of the term ‘Civil Society’ in
different cultural contexts. See Jose Harris, ‘Introduction: Civil Society in British History: Paradigm or Peculiarity’ in
Jose Harris (ed.), Civil Society in British History, pp1-12. More recently Helen McCarthy and Pat Thane, ‘The
Politics of Association in British Society’, Twentieth Century British History, Vol.22, No.2, (2011), pp217-229, have
examined a later period and suggested that strong traditions of voluntary association in Britain in the 1920s and
1930s may have contributed to the ‘unusual stability’ of British society in the interwar years.
8
The concept of democracy as a ‘learning process’ has been taken from Ulrich Herbert, ‘Liberalisierung als
Lernprozeß. Die Bundesrepublik in der deutschen Geschichte – eine Skizze’ in Ulrich Herbert (ed.),
Wandlungsprozesse in Westdeutschland: Belastung, Integration, Liberalisierung 1945-1980 (Göttingen: Wallstein
Verlag, 2002), pp7-49
9
IP 6/5, confidential memo on ‘The anomalous position of the Branch’, 20 July 1946
10
A leading English public school
11
Roger T. Stearn, ‘Ingrams, (William) Harold (1897–1973)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, online edn,
Oxford University Press, Sept 2004 (henceforward Stearn, ‘Ingrams’, DNB)
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/46523, accessed 25 Oct 2011]
12
G. Rex Smith, ‘"Ingrams Peace", Ḥaḍramawt, 1937-40. Some Contemporary Documents’, Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society, Vol.12, No.1, (April, 2002), pp1-30
103
Arabian Peninsula.
13
He was seconded by the Colonial Office in July 1945 to the
Administration and Local Government (ALG) branch of the Control Commission for Germany
and in December that year was made head of branch.
a year, leaving in August 1946.
14
He stayed in Germany for just over
15
Ingrams was an influential member of the British Control Commission, chairing working
parties on local government and electoral procedure.
16
He was also the British member of
the Allied Control Council sub-committee on governmental structure and participated in
bilateral meetings with his US counterpart in July 1946 to consider greater coordination
between the British and US zones.
17
Although he reported to the Deputy Military Governor,
General Robertson, through a brigadier who was initially his head of branch, and General
Philip Balfour, head of the Internal Affairs and Communication division of the Control
Commission, he discussed many issues directly with Robertson.
It is difficult to judge the extent to which Ingrams originated policy, as well as being
responsible for its implementation. In an early study published in 1968,
18
Wolfgang Rudzio
claimed that British local government policy was largely determined by Professor William A.
Robson, an expert in public administration at the LSE,
19
who advised Control Commission
staff while they were based in London. Rudzio’s claim may be exaggerated, as although
Robson was a highly respected figure and his ideas were undoubtedly influential,
20
he
played no part in the work of the Control Commission after they left Britain for Germany in
July 1945. Ingrams’ personal papers show he thought through many issues for himself, but
his conclusions were often similar to those described in other contemporary sources
21
and
he may have been influenced by his colleagues in the branch.
13
Stearn, ‘Ingrams’, DNB
IP 6/5, confidential memo, ‘The anomalous position of the Branch’, 20 July 1946
Harold Ingrams, Seven across the Sahara, (London: John Murray, 1949), p2. His DNB entry is incorrect in stating
that he left Germany in 1947.
16
FO 1050/806; 1050/181; 1050/160; 1050/1040; IP 2/2; 3/5; 3/7; 4/5
17
IP 5/8
18
Rudzio, Die Neuordnung des Kommunalwesens, pp44-5
19
Bernard Crick, ‘Robson, William Alexander (1895–1980)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford
University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2010
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/31622, accessed 25 Oct 2011]
20
Robson published his views in two articles: W.A. Robson, ‘Local Government in Occupied Germany’, The Political
Quarterly, Vol.XIV, No.4, Oct-Dec 1945, pp277-287; William A. Robson, ‘Local Government in Germany: A
background to municipal elections’, The Times, 11 Sept. 1946, p5
21
E.g. J.M. Cobban, ‘Reviving Local Government’, British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.6, 8 Dec. 1945, p8
14
15
104
Ingrams agreed with his British colleagues that the pre-Nazi German system was
undemocratic and should be changed, but the rhetoric he used to justify his proposed
reforms was distinctive and reflected his personal background and experience. Robson saw
the problem in organisational and structural terms, claiming that local government in Weimar
Germany was fundamentally undemocratic, due to the privileged position of the bureaucracy,
executive power vested in senior elected local officials such as town and city mayors
(Bürgermeister), and local authorities acting as an arm of the state with accompanying police
22
and regulatory powers.
The ‘established bureaucracy’ Robson argued, was one of the ‘four
pillars’ of Nazi rule, the others being the Party, the Army and the large industrialists.
23
Ingrams, while not disagreeing with the need for structural reforms and a complete break
with the past, believed that democracy was essentially a matter of individual behaviour with
its basis in Christian morality.
24
4.2 Echoes of empire and ‘missionary idealism’
‘In my experience nothing is more sure than that if you give responsibility to people they are
likely to exercise it properly. I have seen this constantly in Colonial Administrations…’
25
Not content with repealing Nazi laws and restoring the German local and regional
administrative system as it had been in 1933 before Hitler came to power, Ingrams acted as
if he were a secular missionary for democracy, as he understood it. He decided that, as far
as possible, the British model of local government should be introduced in Germany. He
assumed that the British ‘way of life’ represented the essence of democracy and was the
26
‘antithesis’ of the German system.
The Weimar system of democracy had ‘proved an easy
prey for the Nazis’ and ‘to restore the pre-1933 system could be nothing more than
27
ineffectual patch-work.’
Above all, he believed it was essential to make it as difficult as
22
Robson, ‘Local Government in Occupied Germany’
Ibid, p284
E.g. IP 3/7, ‘Lecture given by Mr W. H. Ingrams, CMG, OBE, Adm & Local Gov Branch, IA & C Div to Mil Gov
Comds during Nov 45.’
25
IP 2/1, letter from Ingrams to Philip Balfour, 20 Sept. 1945, ‘Developments in Hamburg’
26
Harold Ingrams, ‘Building democracy in Germany’, The Quarterly Review, No. 572, (April 1947), p209
27
IP 1/1, draft notes dated Jan 1946 for a lecture on ‘Regional and local govt under the Nazis’
23
24
105
possible for anyone in Germany to re-establish the authoritarian Führerprinzip or ‘leadership
principle’ which Hitler had made the basis of Nazi society.
28
Soon after he arrived in Germany, Ingrams recorded his thoughts on the implications of the
October 1944 policy directives issued to senior British officials in Germany as a Military
Government handbook.
29
Apart from a general requirement to promote decentralisation and
the development of local responsibility,
30
the directives provided no guidance on local
government and administration. Possibly reflecting a point of view he had learned at school
or from his father, Ingrams wrote that true democracy was based on Christian principles, and
the biblical ‘thou shalt not’ of the Old Testament must be replaced by, in his words, ‘the
principle of duty towards one’s neighbour’, adding that ‘if we are to change German methods
our only yardstick is our own system.’
31
This sentence embodied three principles he stuck to
throughout his time in Germany: the need for a fundamental change to the former German
system; his belief that the essence of democracy lay not in collective social or political
structures or institutions, but in personal relations between individuals conducted in a spirit of
Christian morality; and a conviction, based on his imperial experience, that the only
practicable way forward was to introduce as much of the British model of democracy into
Germany as possible, as this was not only ‘the most robust in the world’ but the kind of
democracy he and his British colleagues knew and understood best.
The same fundamental principles were expressed in different ways in many other
documents. In February 1946 he prepared a one page paper with the title ‘On Promoting
Democracy in Germany’ which he showed to General Robertson, the Deputy Military
Governor. According to Ingrams, Robertson ‘read it through carefully and then passed it
back saying, with some emphasis “I agree with every word if it.”’
32
The paper was printed as
the Foreword to a revised edition of the directive on local government issued the same
28
IP 1/8. Preamble to the ‘German Municipal Code’ (Deutsche Gemeindeordnung), a 26 page printed booklet with
parallel text in English and German, issued as an appendix to Military Government ordinance No 21. See also
Ingrams, ‘Building democracy in Germany’, p209
29
IP 6/5, ‘Note for file’. An identical copy of the note dated 24 July is in IP 2/1 and an undated handwritten version in
IP 4/7. Ingrams’ copy of the October 1944 directives is in IP 1/8.
30
IP 1/8, Policy Directives for Allied C-in-Cs. Directive No. 1, Appendix A, ‘Draft Directive on Treatment of Germany
in the Initial Post-Defeat Period,’ UK re-draft of US draft directive
31
IP 6/5, ‘Note for file’
32
IP 2/1, letter from Ingrams to Balfour, 19 February 1946, with a one page paper entitled ‘On Promoting
Democracy in Germany’
106
month and circulated widely to Control Commission staff.
33
The views Ingrams expressed
were therefore endorsed at the highest level by the Deputy Military Governor, issued as part
of an official publication and can be considered typical of many of the older generation of
British officers, diplomats and senior administrators in Germany.
Ingrams’ colonial experience led him to the view that the ‘character of a people’ depended on
their physical environment and determined their social and political organisation. He wrote in
the paper that:
Our democracy, the most robust in the world, is the product of our character and our
country. It is on British soil that it flourishes best but we do export it and tended carefully it
grows and flourishes in diverse lands, even if it takes a long time to acclimatise itself.
34
British democracy, he believed, was based on the superior character of the British people
and on Christianity. It was their duty to set an example to the Germans (who if not British
were at least Christian) by practising it themselves and, in so doing, encouraging the
Germans to adopt the same beliefs, values and standards of behaviour:
The democracy we seek to establish is based on Christianity, the fulfilment of our duty
towards our neighbours. The welfare of everyone of us is the concern of each of us and this
is the idea which we have to practise ourselves and help the Germans to practice in each
35
other and to us.
In November 1945 Ingrams went on a lecture tour, in which he explained the thinking behind
the newly released directive on local government to the commanders of British Military
Government units across the zone. In the lecture, he stressed the difficulty of ‘selling
democracy in extremely trying economic conditions’ but also the opportunity, even greater
than that of a former conqueror, Napoleon, to introduce administrative reform in Germany.
36
He told his audience that Government was the concern of every individual man and woman
and it was ‘to the individual in the first place we have to turn our attention’. He described the
33
The first edition of the directive, issued on Sept. 15 1945, is in FO 1050/423 ‘Military Government Directive on
Administrative, Local and Regional Government and the Public Services: Part 1 ‘Democratisation and
Decentralisation of Local and Regional Government’. The second edition dated 1 Feb. 1946, with Ingrams’
introduction, is in Churchill Archives Centre, Albu papers (henceforward AP), Box 10
34
IP 2/1, ‘On Promoting Democracy in Germany’. Ingrams expressed similar views in Seven across the Sahara, e.g.
p207, ‘Christianity and democracy always go well together in agricultural country, just as Islam and democracy do in
more barren lands.’
35
IP 2/1, ‘On Promoting Democracy in Germany’
36
IP 3/7, ‘Lecture given by Mr W. H. Ingrams, CMG, OBE, Adm & Local Gov Branch, IA & C Div to Mil Gov Comds
during Nov 45.’ The programme for the lecture tour, to 7 major towns in the British Zone, from 10 to 23 November
1945, is in IP 4/7
107
British role in Germany as similar to that of a doctor with a patient, though, in some ways, his
words read as though the role he had in mind was that of priest and sinner, or missionary
and potential convert.
37
He later elaborated on the idea of the colonial administrator as a
secular missionary, not specifically in Germany, but throughout the Empire. The colonial
administrator, he wrote, should not claim to possess ‘the whole monopoly of truth and the
only fold in which there is salvation.’ The administrator’s role was not to convert the heathen,
but to bring peace, prosperity and democracy to the inhabitants of other nations. His task
was ‘to help in achieving that peace, and happiness too, which is promised to men of
goodwill of whatever faith they be.’
38
Ingrams did not perceive the British Empire as weak or in decline. After leaving Germany in
1946, he was appointed Chief Commissioner of the Northern Territories of the Gold Coast,
modern Ghana. In an account of his journey to take up the post, published in 1949, he
provided an insight into what we might call his personal philosophy of empire.
39
He wrote in
classic imperial terms of how the British went to Africa and Asia, in the same way that Julius
Caesar and St Augustine had come to England two thousand years earlier, to bring ‘the
civilisation of Rome and Christian faith to these lands’.
40
He was not, however, an old-
fashioned imperialist. His experience travelling overland across the Sahara through British
and French colonial territories confirmed his view that the old order could not last for ever; it
was no longer possible to ‘build slowly on a foundation of native institutions’
a need to actively promote economic development and political reform.
42
41
and there was
He hoped that ‘men
of goodwill’ would learn to work together and if the imperial power helped those in the
colonies manage their own affairs ‘the bonds of friendship so forged will be stronger than any
between a conquering nation and subject peoples.’
43
In practice, of course, the Empire did not evolve as he hoped. Instead of forging ‘bonds of
friendship’, independence in many former colonies, including India, Malaya, Burma,
Palestine and South Africa, was achieved after a bitter struggle or followed by dictatorship
37
Ibid
Ingrams, Seven across the Sahara, p85
Ibid
40
Ibid, p16
41
Ibid, p211
42
Ibid, p195
43
Ibid, px-xi
38
39
108
and civil war rather than peace, prosperity and democracy. In Southern Yemen, where
Ingrams felt a special affinity with the people after working there from 1934 to 1944, the
British were forced to leave in 1967 after a violent four year anti-colonial uprising and war of
independence known, euphemistically, as the ‘Aden Emergency’.
Ingrams’ ideal view of British democracy based on Christian principles represented, at best,
a partial view of history, which ignored rotten boroughs and the widespread corruption in
British politics before the 1832 Reform Act, or the inequalities in British society. In his
emphasis on the role of the individual and an accompanying distrust of political parties, he
seemed to hark back to an imagined idyllic rural past, when everyone knew each other and
the Anglican village parish church was the focus of community life. To quote again from his
lecture in November 1945 to Control Commission staff:
the real strength of local government in England, which is very constantly described as the
home of local government, resides … in the parish; and the strength of the parish was
originally in that Christian life of collective organisation for mutual help which centred round,
and was often directed by, the Church.
44
This was an antiquated, pre-industrial, view of democracy dating back over a hundred years
to the eighteenth century.
English public schools placed a strong emphasis on the classic Greek and Roman texts,
which may explain Ingrams’ belief that the purest form of democracy was similar to that of
ancient Athens, where citizens spoke for themselves rather than through elected
representatives. Idealistically, he attempted to preserve these principles in the smaller
Gemeinden, or parish communities, in Germany:
Democracy in England is found in an almost pure form in the parish meeting, and in the
smaller Gemeinden this was the case in Germany. Any Gemeinde which had less than 40
electors had a Gemeindeversammlung [parish meeting] where each elector spoke and
voted for himself. This we have preserved…
45
He added that German parish meetings were ‘under the complete control of their feudal
lords,’ unlike the robust self-government of the English parishes.
44
IP 3/7, lecture given by Ingrams during Nov. 1945
Ibid
46
Ibid
45
109
46
This was another partial
understanding of history. In established churches in rural Britain in the eighteenth century,
attendance at Sunday service often reflected an authoritarian and hierarchical social order,
47
rather than ‘robust self-government’. As Sidney and Beatrice Webb wrote, the most common
form of parish government in rural districts, before the administrative reforms at the start of
the nineteenth century, was a ‘parish oligarchy’ in which:
Official relationships between the parties were inextricably woven into the economic
relationships that existed between the same individuals in their private capacities. The
Justice of the Peace was probably the landlord of the whole of the parish officers; the
officers were the employers of the paupers; and even the clergyman, who was in many
respects the most independent person in the village, often owed his position to the squire,
let his glebe to the Churchwarden, bargained with the Overseer as to the rates on his tithes,
and drew these tithes from every occupier of land in the parish.
48
Before his posting to Germany, Ingrams had spent the whole of his working life overseas.
His idyllic view of a ‘golden age’ of British parish democracy probably owed as much to what
he had been taught at school or learned from his clergyman father,
49
as to any genuine
understanding of past or contemporary British society.
Ingrams’ imperialist outlook, ‘missionary idealism’ and nostalgic schoolbook view of ‘pure’
direct democracy in rural Britain, centred on the established church and unaffected by party
politics, were inappropriate for the industrialised, largely urban society of Germany in the
1940s, in which those who claimed they had no interest in ‘politics’ were often former Nazis.
As Raymond Ebsworth, a former colleague of Ingrams’, explained later, to say you were
non-political in post-war Germany generally meant that you were either a Nazi, but not willing
to admit it, or that you had not had the courage of your convictions to declare membership of
another party, such as the SPD or Communists, when these were banned by the Nazis.
50
Not surprisingly, Ingrams found it difficult to translate his aspirations into practical and
workable policies.
47
Callum G. Brown, The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation 1800-2000 (London & New York:
Routledge, 2001), p17
48
Sidney and Beatrice Webb, The Parish and the County (London: Frank Cass, 1963), p48
49
Callum Brown, The Death of Christian Britain, pp16-17, claimed that the established clergy had a nostalgic view
of the past, and regretted their reduced social and economic status after they lost some of their influence, at the
start of the nineteenth century, in matters such as poor relief, education and the moral welfare of their parishioners.
50
Raymond Ebsworth, Restoring Democracy in Germany: The British Contribution (London: Stevens & Sons
Limited, 1960), pp22-23
110
4.3 First steps towards political renewal
‘Mil. Gov., in fact, should aim to be regarded as the midwife of German political thought
rather than its repressor’
51
In June and July 1945, Montgomery and his senior officers took steps to initiate the process
of political renewal in the British zone. The creation of a new Directive on Military
Government, issued on 10 September, was discussed in chapter 2. The Directive covered
broad principles only and the formulation of detailed policies was undertaken by the Control
Commission divisions. Ingrams was responsible for its implementation in his area of
responsibility; local government and administration. Because British policy was to build from
the bottom up, his responsibilities included the renewal of political life generally, as well as
the establishment of local and regional councils and preparations for elections.
The process was remarkably quick. General Philip Balfour, head of the Internal Affairs and
Communication Division, wrote to his immediate subordinates on 2 August, a few days after
receiving the first ‘rough draft’ directive, telling them that authority had already been given to
implement those parts of the directive which related to freedom of assembly, liberty of
discussion and the formation of political parties. A working party was to be established under
the chairmanship of Ingrams to ‘prepare clear and concise directions on the subjects
considered.’
52
The first meeting of the newly constituted ‘Working Party on Democratic
Development’ took place the following Monday, 6 August and met daily until its eighth and
final meeting.
53
In addition to re-drafting the relevant sections of the Directive on Military
Government, issued on 10 September,
Ordinances, numbers 8-12,
55
54
the group prepared five Military Government
and a supplementary directive for local commanders on
51
Harold Ingrams, ‘Building democracy in Germany’, The Quarterly Review, No. 572, (April 1947), p213; FO
1050/423, ‘Military Government Directive on Administrative, Local and Regional Government and the Public
Services, Part I, Democratisation and Decentralisation of Local and Regional Government’, p31. Also quoted in
Ebsworth, Restoring Democracy in Germany, pp24-25
52
FO 1050/806, memo from P. Balfour, Major-General, Chief I.A.& C. Division, 2 August 1945, on ‘Draft Directive
from Chief of Staff (BZ)’
53
FO 1050/806
54
FO 1050/1040, ‘Directive on Military Government from Chief of Staff (British Zone)’, 10 Sept. 1945, pp11-15
55
IP 1/4. Ordinance no.8 regulated public discussions, forbade anything which brought the Military Government into
disrepute or glorified war and prohibited ‘Nazi or Militaristic activities’. Ordinance no.9 permitted non-political
meetings such as theatrical events, concerts, circuses and carnivals. Ordinance no.10 concerned applications for
permits for a political meeting, Ordinance no.11 applications for public processions and Ordinance no.12 regulated
the formation of political parties.
111
‘Administrative [sic], Local and Regional Government.’
56
Ingrams was the driving force in
these meetings, preparing drafts of papers, ordinances, instructions and directives, which
were generally accepted by the other participants, with only minor amendments.
57
To assist the Working Party with their discussions, Ingrams circulated a thirteen page paper
which outlined the background to their task and the reasons why he believed political reform
was necessary.
58
He explained that the paper was concerned with ‘the permanent
decentralisation of administration in Germany’, and their aim was ‘to give the ordinary
German man and women [sic] the maximum amount of say in the government of the country
at all levels and to make it as difficult as possible for any one to establish the Führer principle
again.’
59
Ingrams argued that the ban on all forms of political activity, imposed at the start of the
occupation, must be relaxed before they could change German political culture. Freedom of
speech was to be permitted and ‘indeed encouraged’ as ‘the German, who is entirely unused
to such a luxury must gradually be brought to realise that it is not a luxury but a vital
necessity which he or she must never surrender again.’
60
Every adult German man and
woman would be given the right to vote and although, as in England, many would be
apathetic, ‘the Englishman would certainly resist if his right to vote was taken away from him
and ideally the German must be taught to think likewise.’
61
The formation of political parties
would be allowed, but in the Weimar Republic constituencies had been too large for voters to
know the individuals they were voting for, and ‘a vote should be cast for a candidate not a
party.’
62
If ordinary men and women were given responsibility for government, this ‘should
also make it impossible for the Germans to say again with any shadow of truth “It wasn’t our
fault but our leaders.”’
63
56
The full title was ‘Military Government Directive on Administrative, Local and Regional Government and the Public
Services. Part I: Democratisation and Decentralisation of Local and Regional Government,’ published on 15 Sept.
1945. A printed copy is in FO 1050/423
57
See for example FO 1050/806, memo from Ingrams, to Working Party members, 6 Aug.1945, on ‘Mil Gov Instr
No. 21 – Assemblies of Germans’
58
FO 1050/806, Memo from W.H. Ingrams, 10 August 1945 and attached paper headed ‘Working Party on
Democratic Development: some considerations on points arising in connection with measures for development of
democracy in the BZ.’
59
Ibid, p1
60
Ibid
61
Ibid
62
Ibid, p2
63
Ibid, p1
112
Most of the paper covered the detailed principles to be adopted for the establishment of
indirect rule through local and regional Nominated Representative Councils.
64
Ingrams wrote
with great confidence on the subject, based on his colonial training and experience. British
policy in Germany, he wrote, was that of indirect rule, which he defined as ‘rule through
indigenous authorities’ and ‘one of the methods of teaching people to take responsibility in
governing themselves.’
65
He provided detailed advice on how to establish nominated
councils, their recommended size, functions and responsibilities, the role of the chairman
and the creation of standing orders to govern procedure. British detachment commanders
were advised to select members to ensure adequate representation of all the ‘party or
sectional’ interests in an area. This was defined widely, including religious groups, trade
unions, political parties, farmers and industrialists, or geographically by residential areas.
66
The task he envisaged Military Government commanders performing in Germany was
analogous to that undertaken by District Officers in a British colony or dependent territory. A
few weeks earlier, on 17 July, he wrote to a former colleague in the Personnel Department of
the Foreign and Colonial Office in London asking for his help with recruitment, saying he
expected they would need around 600 officers before long, adding that ‘it does seem to me
that the jobs are very much what any D.O. [District Officer] or A.D.O. [Assistant District
Officer] has to cope with especially in indirectly ruled territories….’
67
Revealing something of
his personal circumstances, he added that those attracted to the job might include ‘officers in
the same position as myself, who have about 18 months leave due to them who would like to
spend a year doing a useful job in a decent [i.e. temperate] climate.’
68
The new directive on ‘Administrative, Local and Regional Government’ which resulted from
the Working Party deliberations incorporated much material from Ingrams’ paper. The
directive was written in the form of a handbook for Military Government detachment
commanders and provided guidance on actions to be taken within their own areas. An
explanatory section started by discussing the ‘Nature of the Problem – The Individual
German’:
64
Ibid, pp2-13
Ibid, p2
66
Ibid, pp3-13
67
IP 2/1, letter from Ingrams to Seel, 17 July 1945.
68
Ibid
65
113
The German people have had National Socialism and Nazi doctrine pumped into them for
many years. There are few ordinary Germans alive who are used to thinking for
69
themselves.
Until democratically elected Councils could be established, the directive continued, British
Military Government had to function as a ‘benevolent despotism’ which should act impartially
and ensure that the ‘legitimate needs’ of all sections of the population were met ‘as far as is
proper and reasonable.’
70
Similar sentiments were expressed at the end of the section on
‘Political Parties’, which contrasted a constructive and impartial Military Government with
unscrupulous Nazi ‘gangsters’, and ended with an analogy which embodied the theme of a
new birth for Germany, aided by the British:
Finally, it should be emphasised here as elsewhere that the aim of Mil. Gov. is constructive
rather than repressive. Political parties should be the natural expression of political
consciousness, in Germany as in England. The German should be made to feel that the
regulations laid down in the Ordinance are designed to protect him against exploitation by
unscrupulous careerists and gangsters … Mil. Gov., in fact, should aim to be regarded as
the midwife of German political thought rather than as its repressor.
71
This passage in the directive echoed similar comments by Robertson, telling his staff in an
article in the British Zone Review that their task in Germany was not just a matter of physical
or economic reconstruction, but more like educating a child, as the German nation was
‘being reborn in the present stage of its history.’
72
Despite the obvious paternalism and the
persistence of negative stereotypes of Germans as ignorant and incapable of thinking for
themselves, the wartime discourse of death and destruction was being superseded by a
more positive one of new birth and renewal.
Ingrams was not successful in recruiting 600 former colonial officials to implement the
directive but, by May 1946, Military Government officials had established Nominated
Representative Councils in 7,738 of 7,969 Gemeinde, the lowest level of administration, and
in 189 of 193 urban districts (Stadtkreise). The official in ALG branch who reported the
figures commented:
69
FO 1050/423, Military Government Directive on Administrative, Local and Regional Government and the Public
Services. Part I: Democratisation and Decentralisation of Local and Regional Government,’ 15 Sept. 1945, p6
70
Ibid, p7
71
Ibid, p31
72
‘Quo Vadis?’ British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.3, 27 Oct. 1946, p1
114
On the whole it can definitely be said that the meaning of British democracy is beginning to
penetrate the dormant, apathetic minds of the average German citizen.
73
It may seem ironic that his comment, on the meaning of democracy, accompanied a
progress report on the establishment of non-elected bodies, appointed by the British Military
Government. It indicates that Ingrams and his colleagues did not consider true democracy to
be unqualified rule by the people or their elected representatives; this was how Hitler had
come to power. It was rather the responsible exercise of power, by independent, publicspirited individuals. How they were elected or appointed was the means to the end, not the
end in itself; what mattered was that the ‘right’ people ended up in charge.
4.4 Electoral Reform: the attempt to impose the British ‘majority’ system
‘The chief argument against proportional representation is that it does not lead to a
democratic way of life’
74
Whereas the establishment of Nominated Representative Councils proceeded smoothly,
without the British feeling the need to consult the Germans on the issue, Ingrams and his
colleagues in ALG branch encountered opposition among both British and Germans to their
proposed changes to the German voting system. The most contentious issue, at this stage,
was their proposal to replace the German system of proportional representation (in which the
electorate voted for a party and candidates were selected from a party list in proportion to
the number of votes each party received), with the British ‘first past the post’ or ‘single
majority’ system, in which the electorate voted for a person, not a party, and the single
individual who received the most votes was elected in each constituency.
Ingrams started work on arranging elections in November 1945, when he was asked to
convene a ‘British Working Party to supervise a German Working Party on Electoral
Procedure.’
75
At the first meeting of the (British) Working Party on 20 November, he reported
that decisions on the key policy issues, such as the dates of elections and methods of voting,
had already been taken, but they wished to consult the Germans on matters of detail, such
73
IP 2/1, memo from TND/FG on ‘Progress of Nominated Representative Councils’, 9 May 1946
IP 3/5, ‘Papers of the Second Meeting of the German Working Party’, 31 Jan. - 2 Feb. 1946.
75
IP 1/7, minutes of the first meeting of the working party on electoral procedure
74
115
as the size of constituencies, qualifications for inclusion in the electoral roll and the design of
the ballot boxes.
76
However, he found it was no longer possible to restrict discussions with
the Germans to matters of detail or impose changes without consultation, as he had done in
his earlier directive on local government, issued in September 1945.
Ingrams introduced the second meeting of the German Working Party, at the end of January
1946, by making a speech on the benefits of the single majority system. He argued that the
British system worked well in the Empire, and should therefore also work in Germany:
Although we still think the single majority system is the best, we would like to consult with
you again. We do not say the British democracy is the only kind in the world, or the best,
but we do feel it has proved itself as the most workable. Perhaps because of the character
of the British people, which is well known. This system has been adopted in other countries
and in the Empire, and has worked there quite satisfactorily. We feel the German people
77
are not dissimilar to the British, and there is no reason why it should not work here.
He continued by describing the benefits of the British system in similar fashion to his earlier
lectures to Control Commission staff: proportional representation did not lead to a
‘democratic way of life’, it was impersonal and led to ‘one strong man with a weak following’,
the individual was especially important in local government which was the concern of
everyone. He illustrated this last point with the example: ‘“Are the streets muddy? We would
like to know why.” Parties must interest themselves in this sort of thing.’ Some of the German
delegates were either persuaded by Ingrams’ arguments, or believed that the British system
would work to their benefit. At the end of the meeting, the delegates voted – eight in favour
of the British majority system and seven for proportional representation – but, unfortunately
for Ingrams, this was not the end of the matter.
78
It emerged during the meeting that Ingrams had received specific instructions, on a visit to
London a few days earlier, that if the German delegates rejected the British single majority
system, he should offer them the alternative vote instead.
79
This was a more proportional
system, but preserved the principle of electors voting for an individual, not a party. His
instructions probably derived from John Hynd, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and
76
Ibid
IP 3/5, ‘Papers of the Second Meeting of the German Working Party’, 31 Jan.-2 Feb. 1946
Ibid
79
Ibid
77
78
116
government minister responsible for Germany.
80
As a former railway official, Hynd was
familiar with the alternative vote from its use by the National Union of Railwaymen (NUR) in
their internal elections. He was also sympathetic to the SPD who depended on a strong party
organisation and therefore had most to gain from proportional representation, though all the
representatives of political parties on Ingrams’ Working Party opposed the British ‘simple
81
majority’ system.
Kenneth Macassey, a Home Office expert delegated to advise Ingrams
on matters of electoral procedure, told him a few days after the meeting that he had spoken
with Hynd, who considered that Ingrams was ‘trying to put a quick one over on the German
political parties’, and Hynd wanted to introduce the NUR system, despite Macassey telling
him ‘that the Germans weren’t capable of working it…’
82
The issue was resolved when Austen Albu arrived in Germany in early February, to take up
a position in the Political Division of the Control Commission.
83
Albu was an active socialist,
personally appointed by Hynd. Robertson raised the question of electoral procedure at his
first meeting with Albu, telling him that he had decided to go ahead with the simple majority
system rather than proportional representation and, if Hynd wished to change this, he should
say so sooner rather than later.
84
At a divisional meeting a few days later, chaired by
General Balfour and attended by Ingrams, Albu put forward Hynd’s objections to Ingrams’
proposed reforms. Albu told the meeting that Hynd was ‘averse to imposing on the Germans
a system of which they were not wholly in favour’; the fact that it worked in Britain did not
necessarily mean it would work in Germany; proportional representation was ‘well
established in Europe … had considerable support in England’ and ‘could not be lightly
dismissed’. After a long discussion it was agreed that the best solution would be a
compromise: proportional representation but without the party list. It was agreed that Albu
and Ingrams should write a brief for Robertson, who was due to speak to the German
Working Party at its next meeting on 14 February.
80
85
FO 1049/2114, ‘Confidential Report on Chancellor on the Duchy of Lancaster’s Tour’, 25 Jan. 1946, sent to
Strang by Noel Annan (Lieutenant-Colonel, Political Division). The report noted under the heading ‘electoral
procedure’ that Hynd considered that ‘the views of the German Working Committee on this subject should prevail’.
81
FO 1056/27, ‘Minutes of the first weekly meeting between Political Division and A. & L.G. Branch’ held on 6 Feb.
1946.
82
IP 4/1, ‘Note of conversation with Macassey’, 6 Feb. 1946
83
See chapter 5
84
AP 13/2, diary entry for 3 Feb. 1946
85
AP 13/2, diary entry for 4 Feb. 1946; FO 1056/27, ‘Minutes of the first weekly meeting between Political Division
and A. & L.G. Branch’ held on 6 Feb. 1946
117
The brief still outlined the advantages of the British majority system, but represented a
change in tone from Ingrams’ earlier assertions that the British system was the best in the
world and there was no reason why it should not be adopted in Germany.
86
In his address,
Robertson was conciliatory. He re-emphasised that the Working Party should ‘choose a
system under which the voter declares himself for an individual and not merely a party’ and
that the existing electoral system in Germany was unsound and had contributed to the
downfall of democracy in the Weimar Republic. However he concluded, somewhat
ambiguously, by saying that:
What is good for England is not necessarily good for Germany. That is why we will not
impose our system on you unless we are convinced that it will give general satisfaction to
87
your people.
The process of democratisation had now become a dialogue, not the forced imposition of
one particular system by the British on the Germans.
The Working Party again failed to reach a conclusion. At a meeting in London attended by
Hynd, Robertson, Albu, and Ingrams, a compromise was agreed which combined the form of
the British system – electors voting for an individual in their constituency – with the
substance of the former German proportional representation system.
88
Results of individual
ballots were supplemented by the selection of additional candidates from a party list, to
increase the total elected to reflect the proportion of votes cast for each party.
89
Albu later
claimed that the compromise system was his idea, writing that, when studying the papers for
the meeting, he ‘suddenly remembered’ Jim Middleton, secretary of the Labour Party, telling
him about a similar system in France.
90
This system, with some modifications, is used in
Germany today. Very similar systems have been adopted in Britain, in more recent times, for
elections to the Scottish, Welsh and London Assemblies.
The issue of electoral procedure illustrates some of the tensions within the British
administration and the limited scope Ingrams possessed to impose fundamental structural
86
IP 3/7, papers for 3rd meeting of working party for electoral procedure
Ibid
88
CAC, AP15, Austen Albu, Back Bench Technocrat, unpublished autobiography, pIII/6-7; FO 371/55611, C2327
‘German Local Elections in the British Zone’, notes of meeting held on 16 Feb. 1946
89
Ingrams, ‘Building democracy in Germany’, pp217-8; Ebsworth, Restoring Democracy in Germany, p65
90
CAC, AP15, Austen Albu, Back Bench Technocrat, unpublished autobiography, pIII/6; See also FO 371/55611
‘German Local Elections in the British Zone’. A minute in the file by an FO official tends to confirm Albu’s claim that
that the new system was his idea.
87
118
changes on the German political system, despite having the support of Robertson, the
Deputy Military Governor. Hynd could not dictate policy from London but, through Albu acting
as the minister’s representative on the ground, on this occasion he and Albu were able to
argue the case and over-ride Ingrams, the British official in Germany responsible for the
issue. Robertson changed his mind and, rather than supporting Ingrams, deferred to his
political masters. The outcome was a compromise: the introduction of a new hybrid electoral
procedure, which has stood the test of time remarkably well.
4.5 Civil service reform: the proposed abolition of the Bürgermeister
‘No aspect of the work of ALG branch has been more discussed
and disputed than this.’
91
A second, more contentious, dispute with leading German politicians arose over Ingrams’
proposed separation of powers between an elected and unpaid ‘Chairman of the Council’
and a salaried professional ‘Town Clerk’, following the British model of local government in
city, county, town and district councils. Previously in Germany, both roles had been
combined in the position of Bürgermeister, an elected mayor with executive responsibilities.
The measure was part of a package of reforms designed to establish the principle that senior
paid civil servants (known as Beamten) should be ‘servants of the people’, not of the state,
and limit their ability to engage in political activities, such as active membership of a political
party.
92
The proposed reforms were strongly criticised by German officials and politicians,
who saw them as an attempt to impose an alien system that conflicted with long-established
and effective German administrative traditions.
93
Opposition to the reforms generally, and to the proposed change in status of the
Bürgermeister in particular, first emerged at a consultative body, comprising the German
leaders of the regional governments in the British Zone.
94
Michael Thomas, a half-Jewish
German refugee who fled Germany in 1939 and returned in 1945 as an officer in the British
91
IP 5/6, ‘Principles on which political restrictions on public servants are based’, 9 July 1946.
Reusch, Deutsches Berufsbeamtentum, pp197-239
93
Ibid, pp252-3
94
Until regional elections were held in the British Zone, in October 1946, the heads of German regional
governments and members of the consultative group were all British nominees.
92
119
army, acted as the British liaison officer for early meetings of the group.
95
He reported in
October 1945 that:
The main objection the Germans raise against our directive is the transfer of the executive
functions of the political head of an administration to a paid public servant. They argue that
such a system might work well in England, but in present day Germany there would not be
anybody who could afford to hold the political office without pay. To pay him although he
has no executive functions would defeat the object of the scheme, quite apart from the
financial burden to the administration.
96
The next meeting of the group was attended by General Templer,
97
who defended the
reforms in a speech based largely on a brief prepared by J.M. Cobban, a close colleague of
Ingrams, using the usual arguments that:
We have no intention of imposing a purely British conception of democracy on Germany. As
a matter of fact, the Military Government Directive on Local Government is not a purely
British thing, but is common form throughout the whole democratic world. It is no use saying
the Germany already had an excellent democratic system in the past. That system was not
good enough to prevent the seizure of power by anti-democratic forces ….’
98
The German politicians were not impressed. Thomas reported that:
Feeling is very strong on this subject. During the conference I was approached again and
again about it. British writers were quoted as considering the German local government
code preferable to the English system in many ways.
99
Thomas did not elaborate further on which British writers they were referring to but,
according to Reusch, the German Civil Service was regarded favourably in British and US
local government studies written before 1945, admired for its independence, professionalism
and lack of corruption.
100
Harold Laski, writing in 1917, contrasted the German tradition of
self-government favourably with ‘an over-centralized unitary sovereign state’ in Britain,
claiming that ‘there was in normal times a far more vigorous and autonomous culture of local
95
Michael Thomas, Deutschland, England über alles: Rückkehr als Besatzungsoffizier (Berlin: Siedler Verlag, 1984)
FO 1050/149, ‘Comments on Conference of Oberprasidenten etc in Hamburg on 29th Oct 45: By Capt M.A.
Thomas.’
97
Deputy Chief of Staff to Robertson and previously Director of Civil Affairs for the British 21st Army Group
98
FO 1050/149, ‘Address to the Oberpräsidenten Landes [sic] - and Ministerpräsidenten by the D.C.O.S. (Exec.) at
Detmold on 19 Nov. 45.’
99
Ibid, ‘Notes on the conference of the heads of the Lander and Provinces of the British Zone held at Detmold,
November 19/20, By Capt M.A. Thomas.’
100
Reusch, Deutsches Berufsbeamtentum, p88, citing, inter alia, William Harbutt Dawson. Municipal Life and
government in Germany’, (London: 1914) pviii, pix, pp113-115
96
120
and civic self-government in Germany than in Britain, where local authorities were merely an
“anaemic reflex of the central power.”’
101
The issue of civil service reform illustrated some of the difficulties Ingrams and his
colleagues faced when they attempted to apply the principle of a politically neutral civil
service to Germany. Despite its reputation for independence and integrity, the great majority
of German professional administrators still in post at the end of the war, if not themselves
party members, had survived the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 and had supported the
government throughout the war. Those who had been members of the Social Democratic
Party (SPD), on the other hand, had been banned by the Nazis, some had been forced into
exile or imprisoned and only a few older members possessed any practical experience of
administration. In 1946, many of the SPD’s leading figures had been appointed to positions
of responsibility by the British and were financially dependent on salaries from executive
positions in local or regional government.
102
Their ideal solution would have been to keep the
system unchanged but to replace the former administrators, tainted with Nazism, with their
own supporters. The British, on the other hand, were reluctant to endorse what appeared to
them to be blatant partisanship, and wary of replacing proven administrators with others who
had little or no experience.
103
Ingrams’ proposals were condemned by German politicians on both sides of the political
spectrum. SPD members, in exile in London or recently returned to Germany, wrote to Hynd
complaining about the proposals.
104
Thomas reported that Robert Lehr, a Christian
Democrat and former Bürgermeister of Düsseldorf,
105
said that ‘he would resign altogether if
the question which of the two jobs he would choose was put to him’.
106
It was not only
German politicians who disagreed with Ingrams’ reforms. Wolfgang Friedmann, a legal
expert who fled from Nazi Germany in 1934 and worked for the British Control Commission
101
Harold Laski, Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty (New Haven, Conn. 1917), cited in Jose Harris, ‘From
Richard Hooker to Harold Laski: Changing Perceptions of Civil Society in British Political Thought, Late Sixteenth to
Early Twentieth Centuries,’ in Jose Harris (ed.), Civil Society in British History, p35.
102
FO 938/248, letter from Sander to Hynd, 28 Feb. 1946
103
FO 1050/130;
104
Ludwig Eiber, Die Sozialdemokratie in der Emigration (Bonn: JHW Dietz Nachfolger, 1998), p468; Reusch,
Deutsches Berufsbeamtentum, pp261-2
105
Lehr, a founder member of the post-war German CDU, was later appointed Minister of the Interior in Adenauer’s
first Federal German government.
106
FO 1050/149, ‘Notes on conference of the heads of the Länder and provinces of the British Zone held at
Dusseldorf December 10, 11 and 12th, By Capt. M.A. Thomas.’ Revealing his attitude towards leading German
politicians, Ingrams wrote in the margin of the notes ‘a good job if he does’.
121
after the war,
107
was highly critical of the British attempt to reform local government.
Referring specifically to the proposal to abolish the position of Bürgermeister, he wrote that:
By this administrative reform the British Control Commission created a vital divergence
between local government in its own zone and that of the other three zones. From the
beginning it aroused violent opposition amongst the vast majority of German parties and
organisations. Opposition was directed mainly against the alien character of the reform, the
duplication of the apparatus and the increase in cost.
108
Friedmann was not impressed by the colonial mentality of some of his British colleagues and
he may have had Ingrams in mind when he wrote that:
Another type of British administrator suffers from the colonial mind. Many came to Germany
with the idea that Germany could be administered on the pattern of an undeveloped British
Colony. The British experience of colonial government may be more of a handicap than a
benefit in the administration of a highly developed and civilised country.
109
Faced with determined German opposition, Ingrams did not succeed in his proposal to
abolish the position of Bürgermeister and enforce a separation of function between an
elected ‘Chairman of the Council’ and paid ‘Town Clerk’. He left Germany in August 1946,
after completing a year’s secondment from the Colonial Office, disappointed at what he
considered to be lack of support from the government in London and a refusal by the
Treasury to increase his pay following his promotion the previous December to head of
branch.
110
In November 1946, Military Government Ordinance no. 57 transferred
responsibility for local government and elections from the British to the German
authorities.
111
Ingrams’ plans for far-reaching reforms to the German Civil Service were
shelved and apparently forgotten.
112
Rather than attempting structural changes to the
German system, his colleagues in the Administration and Local Government Branch adopted
an advisory role, running training courses and setting up a local government school of
administration where invited British lecturers and German participants exchanged views and
107
Friedmann was later appointed Professor of International Law at Columbia University.
W. Friedmann, The Allied Military Government of Germany, (London: Stevens & Sons Limited, 1947), p103
Ibid, p46
110
IP 6/5, confidential Memo on ‘The anomalous position of the Branch’, 20 July 1946
111
Ebsworth, Restoring Democracy in Germany, p128
112
For a full discussion of Ingrams’ plans to reform the German Civil Service at all levels, see Reusch, Deutsches
Berufsbeamtentum
108
109
122
debated best practice.
113
Most of the British local government reforms implemented
previously were rolled back in later years.
Shortly before he left Germany, in July 1946, Ingrams complained in a personal memo,
apparently written to his immediate superior, about the lack of support he received from his
British colleagues. He wrote that he retained his sense of mission as ‘one that needs to be
carried through in the interests of humanity and our nation’, but was increasingly
discouraged by difficulties placed in his way internally by the British Control Commission. He
was disappointed at the failure to authorise increases in staff, to advance the status of his
branch to that of a division and at the lack of support from the government in London. He no
longer wished to remain in Germany and had asked the Colonial Office to find him another
post, adding ‘They know well that my main experience and interests lie in the Middle East.’
114
Soon after, he left Germany for a period of leave in England, before being offered a post, not
in the Middle East, but in Africa. In an article in the April 1947 issue of the Quarterly Review,
however, summarising his work and achievements in Germany, he concluded more
positively that: ‘contact and cooperation’ with the Germans were ‘necessary to bring the task
to a successful conclusion’.
115
4.6 Conclusion
The limited nature of Ingrams’ electoral and administrative reforms was in stark contrast to
the scale of his ambition to reform Weimar democracy. Even so, he met significant
resistance and the British authorities were unwilling to impose fundamental structural
reforms without the support of a clear majority of leading German politicians.
Ingrams’ arguments in favour of specific reforms, including the replacement of proportional
representation with the British ‘first past the post’ electoral system and the abolition of the
position of Bürgermeister, were not compelling. Germans were not convinced that because
something worked in Britain it would work in Germany, or that because it had been
successfully introduced in the British Empire, it could and should be applied to Germany.
113
Ebsworth, Restoring Democracy in Germany, pp100-105
IP 6/5, Confidential Memo on ‘The anomalous position of the Branch’, 20 July 1946
115
Ingrams, ‘Building democracy in Germany’, p222
114
123
They dismissed or ignored his nostalgic view of British ‘parish pump’ democracy, centred
round the church, and his belief in the ability of ‘men of goodwill’ to meet together and
resolve their problems, without resorting to mass organisation and political parties. After
twelve years of Nazi rule, when ‘men of goodwill’ had failed to prevent a disastrous war and
previously unimaginable atrocities, it is not surprising that his views appeared both outdated
and inappropriate. He and his colleagues did not appreciate the strengths of the pre-1933
German local government system, such as its respect for local traditions and high standards
of professionalism, as well as the weaknesses. On a more practical level, it seemed
perverse that the proposed reforms should disadvantage a political party, the SPD, that had
been the most determined of all German parties in its opposition to the Nazis and which was
heavily dependent on mass organisation, voting by party lists, and providing financial
security for its leading members through salaried posts in public service.
Despite disagreement over the means, there was substantial agreement between the British
reformers and the German politicians and administrators they worked with about the ends to
be achieved, and what both considered to be democratic values. German politicians agreed
that the electoral system should promote stable government with an effective but loyal
opposition and that it should discourage extreme or ‘freak’ parties, as Ingrams called
116
them.
They agreed on the need to protect individual rights and safeguard the individual
against excessive demands from an authoritarian government.
117
They were sympathetic to
the principles of decentralisation and the development of local responsibility. Those
attending British-run local government schools pointed out inconsistencies between the
principles they were taught and increased centralisation in Britain, such as the
nationalisation of locally managed hospitals within the newly created NHS. As Ebsworth later
related, such inconsistencies ‘genuinely shocked the German audience.’
118
Ingrams, like many of his contemporaries, displayed an arrogant belief in the superiority of
the British character and way of life due, in his view, to nurture rather than nature and the
favourable physical environment of ‘Island Britain’, contrasted with ‘the plains of
116
IP 3/5, ‘Papers of the second meeting of the German Working Party’, 31 Jan. – 2 Feb. 1946; IP 2/1, letter to
Philip Balfour, 20 Sept. 1945 on ‘Developments in Hamburg’
117
IP 2/2 ‘Introduction by Germany [sic] Working Party on Electoral Procedure’ in notes of the 1 st meeting of the
German Working Party on Electoral Procedure, 10-12 Jan. 1946.
118
Ebsworth, Restoring Democracy in Germany, pp113-4
124
Germany.’
119
But he did not have sufficient authority within the British administration to
impose his views. When he encountered opposition among German politicians, the British
authorities backed down, arguing, as Hynd did in July 1946, that it ‘would be wrong to
impose a British system arbitrarily on the Germans.’
120
Ingrams treated Germans as ignorant
natives, doubting their ability to ‘think for themselves’ or understand complex issues such as
proportional systems of voting in democratic elections. At the same time he possessed a
sincere belief that his actions were in the Germans’ best interests. The British, he wrote, had
‘a great record in helping other nations and races along the path to true democracy’ and the
best British administrators were ‘guided by the three principles of honesty of purpose, just
dealing and humanity’.
121
Such views could appear plausible in the 1940s, before
decolonisation resulted, in many newly independent countries, in bitter conflict and
government by dictatorship, rather than liberal democracy.
Historians have generally considered the early British attempts to introduce democracy in
post-war Germany to be a failure.
122
Some of the features which Ingrams considered to be
fundamental to the British democratic ‘way of life’, such as the need to vote for an individual
rather than a party and the strict separation between an elected and unpaid ‘Leader of the
Council’ and a professional salaried ‘Town Clerk’, no longer apply in Britain, let alone in
Germany. Local government has lost much of its power to act independently of central
government, in areas such as health, education and housing. Elected mayors in London and
other cities now combine an elected role with paid executive responsibilities, (as has long
been the case in the US), and the increasing use of special advisers appointed directly by
government ministers has started to erode the long-standing British principle of an
independent, non-political, civil service.
Many of Ingams’ proposals, such as changes to electoral procedure and the abolition of the
position of Bürgermeister, were heavily criticised by contemporaries and never fully
implemented, but this does not imply that his attempt to reform local government in Germany
should be ignored. Perhaps the most important contribution of the British during the
119
IP 2/1, ‘On Promoting Democracy in Germany’
IP 5/6
121
IP 6/5, ‘Memorandum on Relations with Germans’, 29 Sept. 1945
122
E.g. Reusch, Deutsches Berufsbeamtentum, p376. Rudzio was more generous writing in 1968 in Die
Neuordnung des Kommunalwesens, p215, that the British left a democratising and decentralising influence on West
German local government, which became more prominent in the 1950s and 1960s, after the older officials retired.
120
125
occupation, in this as in other fields, was not that they succeeded or failed in imposing their
particular conception of democracy, but that they proposed an alternative model for the
future that was different from both the former Nazi and Weimar models. They argued and
debated with leading German politicians what kind of system was most appropriate, initially
at local and regional level and then for the Federal Republic, and in so doing discovered
shared values as well as differences. When viewed in this way, the occupation was not a
time of ‘forced re-orientation’ dictated by the Allies, as proposed by some historians,
123
but a
period of dialogue and debate and the start of a successful and productive learning process,
which as Ulrich Herbert and others have shown,
124
continued through the following decades
with the liberalisation of West German society in the 1960s and the fall of communism in the
East in the 1980s and 1990s, to the present.
123
E.g. Konrad H. Jarausch, After Hitler: Recivilizing Germans, 1945-1995 (New York: Oxford University Press,
2006)
124
Ulrich Herbert (ed.), Wandlungsprozesse in Westdeutschland: Belastung, Integration, Liberalisierung 1945-1980
(Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2002)
126
5
Austen Albu and Allan Flanders: International socialist visions of
political renewal: February 1946 - December 1947
‘The Berlin battle must be won –
1
and unfortunately I am the only person here who might do it.’
‘We may all agree that the hope of realising the Just State in our time is a receding dream.
Its achievement will be the responsibility of those who follow us.
2
But we can try and help to smooth the path.’
Austen Albu and Allan Flanders were appointed to positions in the Political Division of the
Control Commission by John Hynd, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and minister
3
responsible for Germany. All three had been active in socialist organisations before and
during the war, in the Fabian Society, the Labour Party, and various fringe groups that
4
attempted to influence Labour Party policy. They were also closely associated with German
socialist refugees who fled to Britain from Nazi Germany. According to a former official at his
5
department, Hynd owed his appointment to his contacts with German exiles. Albu had close
links with a small but influential socialist splinter group, Neu Beginnen, and Flanders was the
leading member of the Socialist Vanguard Group, the British arm of a group founded in
Germany with international pretensions, the Internationaler Sozialistischer Kampfbund,
translated into English as Militant Socialist International, but usually referred to by its initials,
ISK.
1
Churchill College Archives (henceforward CAC), Albu papers (henceforward AP) 12/3, Germany, correspondence
1946, letter from Austen Albu to his wife, Rose, 16 Feb. 1946
2
Modern Records Centre, Warwick University (henceforward MRC), Socialist Vanguard Group papers
(henceforward SVG), MSS.173/3/4, Minutes Agendas of Exec: 1943-48, personal message to members of the
Socialist Vanguard Group
3
For Albu’s appointment by Hynd see Austen Albu, Back Bench Technocrat, unpublished autobiography, in CAC,
AP15, pII/33. For Flanders’ appointment by Hynd see Mary Saran, Never Give Up (London: Oswald Wolff, 1976),
p95 and MRC SVG MSS.173/3/4, report of SVG executive meeting on 18 Dec. 1945.
John Kelly, Ethical Socialism and the Trade Unions: Allan Flanders and the British Industrial Relations Reform,
(New York & Abingdon: Routledge, 2010), p44 and Denis Healey, The Time of my Life (London: Michael Joseph,
1989), p88, appear to be incorrect in stating that Flanders was appointed by Ernest Bevin.
4
Hynd and Flanders were both active in the Fabian Society in Sheffield during the war. Hynd was also associated
with the Socialist Clarity Group, founded by Albu and Patrick Gordon-Walker after the Socialist League, led by
Stafford Cripps, was disaffiliated from the Labour Party. See AP 7/2, letters from Hynd to Albu, 5 and 29 Jan. 1940.
5
Reusch, Deutsches Berufsbeamtentum p101, p259. Hynd was a self-taught railway official who spoke several
languages fluently, including German. He was elected MP for Sheffield Attercliffe in a by-election in 1944. Apart
from his contacts with German exiles, he had no experience which would have made him a suitable candidate as
Minister for Germany. For his contacts with German exiles see Churchill College Archives, Hynd papers, 3/4,
‘Personal correspondence about Germany or with Germans 1944-70’; Ulrich Reusch, ‘Das Porträt: John Burns
Hynd (1902-1971)’, Geschichte im Westen, Vol.1 No.1 (1986); Ludwig Eiber, Die Sozialdemokratie in der
Emigration (Bonn: J H W Dietz Nachfolger, 1998), pXLV, pCXV, p655, p745, p840; Mark Minion, ‘Left, Right or
European? Labour and Europe in the 1940s: The case of the Socialist Vanguard Group’ European Review of
History: Revue européenne d’histoire, Vol.7, No.2, July 2010, p246.
127
Albu and Flanders’ socialist views and contacts with comrades from different national, social
and cultural backgrounds gave them a different perspective from the high ranking soldiers
and administrators considered previously. They wanted to change the world for the better,
not preserve the established social order and their own privileged position within it. They had
an international outlook and believed that inequalities in society, between rich and poor,
capitalists and workers, the strong and the weak, were more important than national
differences.
6
There were not many active socialists in senior positions in the British Military Government
and Control Commission for Germany, so Albu and Flanders were not typical of the British
governing elite in occupied Germany, but their experience is interesting for two reasons: they
were personal appointees of John Hynd, the government minister responsible for Germany,
and they had strong links with German socialists. A discussion of the difficulties they
encountered can help answer a question which has intrigued historians of the occupation:
why did a Labour Government in Britain not implement a more overtly socialist policy in
7
Germany? German socialists, especially those in exile, expected to take power after the
Nazi State had been defeated and believed that a Labour government in Britain would help
8
them to achieve this. Albu and Flanders tried to support their German socialist comrades
but found they had limited scope to implement policies they considered necessary to achieve
constructive change. They returned to Britain at the end of 1947 disappointed with their
achievements and with a pessimistic outlook for the future.
This chapter examines, firstly, their personal backgrounds and experience, political activities
before and during the war and the nature of their links with German socialists. It then
discusses what they and the groups they were associated with aimed to achieve in post-war
Germany. The outcome of their work is examined, with a view to assessing their contribution
6
For Albu’s political views see, inter alia, Albu, Back Bench Technocrat; and the Socialist Clarity Group’s journal,
Labour Discussion Notes, in CAC AP14. For Flanders’ views see Kelly, Ethical Socialism and the Trade Unions;
Material collected by Mary Saran on Allan Flanders’ life and work, in MRC FP, MSS.65/199; and editorials in the
Socialist Vanguard group’s journal, Socialist Commentary, such as ‘Liberated Britain’, Aug. 1945.
7
For example Wolfgang Rudzio, ‘Großbritannien als sozialistische Besatzungsmacht in Deutschland – Aspekte des
deutsch-britischen Verhältnisses 1945-1948’ in Lothar Kettenacker, Manfred Schlenke, Hullmut Seier, (eds.),
Studien zur Geschichte Englands und der deutsch-britischen Beziehungen: Festschrift für Paul Kluke (Munich:
Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1981), p341
8
Ibid. Rudzio cited a leading German socialist exile in London and Neu Beginnen member, Richard Löwenthal,
writing in 1946 that the Labour victory in Britain in 1945 should be a model for the success of democratic socialism
in Germany.
128
to the process of political renewal and the limitations on their scope for action as members of
the occupation authority.
5.1 Personal background, political activities and links with German socialists
Austen Albu and Neu Beginnen
‘From these highly intelligent people I not only learnt a great deal
about the history and events leading to the Nazi victory but also
acquired a tougher mode of thought in political matters.’
9
Austen Albu, by Bassano, 1950 © National Portrait Gallery
Austen Albu was appointed in February 1946 on a temporary contract as head of the
‘German Political Department’ in the Political Division of the Control Commission. Three
months later he was promoted to the influential position of Deputy Chairman of the newly
9
Albu, Back Bench Technocrat, pII/11
129
formed ‘Governmental Sub-Commission’ and remained in post until he returned to Britain in
November 1947.
He was born in 1903 into a moderately prosperous British Jewish family. His paternal
grandfather immigrated to Britain from Berlin and his mother’s family had lived in the West of
England since the eighteenth century. He went to school at Tonbridge,
10
but was not very
successful academically. After training as an engineer at the City and Guilds College,
11
he
moved to Newcastle where he met his future wife and became a socialist, appalled at the
living conditions in some of the Tyneside boroughs and ‘dissatisfied with the hypocrisy of the
middle-class ethos in which I had been brought up and with the military nationalism which
had inevitably accompanied the [first world] war.’
12
After a brief flirtation with the theatre, he
settled down, married and obtained a well-paid job as works manager for Aladdin Lamps,
who were planning to build a factory in West London. He spent a year in the United States to
learn the business, returned to London and opened the factory in 1931. He continued with
his political activities, joining the Socialist League when it was formed in 1932. He was also
active in the Fabian Society and in 1933 was elected chairman of his local constituency
Labour Party in Uxbridge.
13
Albu was close to a small but influential group of German socialist exiles, Neu Beginnen.
14
The group had been founded in Germany as an elite cadre of revolutionary socialists, the
‘Org.’ which recruited members from both the socialist SPD and communist KPD. Internal
differences over the best strategy to pursue after Hitler’s accession to power in 1933, when
all socialist parties were banned, led to some members going into exile, whereas others
decided to continue to oppose the Nazis from within Germany. At first they avoided
detection, but in 1935-36 a resistance ‘cell’ was discovered by the Gestapo and its members
10
A leading English public school, also attended by Sholto Douglas
Part of Imperial College of Science and Technology
12
Albu, Back Bench Technocrat, pI/5
13
Albu, Back Bench Technocrat
14
The name Neu Beginnen came from the title of a pamphlet written in 1933 by the group’s leader, Walter
Löwenheim, under the pseudonym ‘Miles’. Some members were former communists who had joined the KP-O,
(Communist Party-Opposition), a group formed in 1929 which opposed the subservience of the KPD (German
Communist Party) to Moscow. On Neu Beginnen see Eiber, Die Sozialdemokratie in der Emigration; Francis L.
Carsten, ‘From Revolutionary Socialism to German History’ in Peter Alter, Out of the Third Reich: Refugee
Historians in Post-War Britain (London & New York: I. B. Tauris, 1998), pp25-40; Mario Keßler, Kommunismuskritik
im westlichen Nachkriegsdeutschland: Franz Borkenau, Richard Löwenthal, Ossip Flechtheim.’ (Berlin: Verlag für
Berlin-Brandenburg, 2011), pp76-7; Harold Hurwitz, Demokratie und Antikommunismus in Berlin nach 1945: Vol.4,
Part 1, Die Anfänge des Widerstands (Cologne: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik, 1990), pp33-50; Richard
Löwenthal, Die Widerstandsgruppe Neu Beginnen, (Berlin: Gedenkstätte Deutscher Widerstand, 2001); Werner
Röder, Die deutschen sozialistischen Exilgruppen in Großbritannien 1940-1945, (Bonn-Bad Godesberg: Verlag
Neue Gesellschaft GmbH, 1973)
11
130
tried and sentenced to prison for up to five years. In 1939 after the invasion of
Czechoslovakia, the group’s ‘foreign office’ (Auslandsbüro) moved from Prague to London.
Some members emigrated again to the United States after the fall of France, some stayed in
Germany, and around twenty spent the war in in Britain, where they formed a loose group of
intellectuals, well connected with parts of British academia and the media.
Albu first met representatives of the group in London in the 1930s. He and his wife, Rose,
visited Neu Beginnen members in Prague and later in Paris.
15
In 1935 they went to Berlin
where Rose, apparently without the knowledge of her husband, met the lawyer acting for a
member who had been captured and was on trial.
16
Neu Beginnen members stayed at Albu’s
house in London after arriving in Britain as refugees. The historian Francis Carsten, for
example, related how he stayed with them after leaving Amsterdam in 1939, before being
offered a fellowship at Wadham College, Oxford.
17
Patrick Gordon-Walker, a friend of the Albus and a don at Oxford, had made contact with
Neu Beginnen on his visits to Germany in the early 1930s.
18
In 1937, he and Albu founded a
new organisation, the Socialist Clarity Group, with, as Albu wrote in his memoirs, ‘two or
three of our German and Austrian comrades’
19
now in exile in London. British members of
the group included William Warbey, later a left-wing Labour MP, Michael Chance, an
ethologist who inter alia attempted to explain the rise of Nazism in terms of social
20
pathology
and Jon Kimche, a journalist and co-author with his brother David of Secret
Roads, a history of Jewish migration to Palestine.
21
Both Neu Beginnen and the ISK faced persecution and operated underground in Germany
after Hitler’s seizure of power. The Socialist Clarity Group made plans to do the same if
Hitler invaded Britain. As a Jew, Albu was at particular risk and concerned for his safety and
15
Albu, Back Bench Technocrat, pII/11
Hurwitz, Die Anfänge des Widerstands, p52
17
IWM Sound Archive, accession no. 4483, Francis Carsten.
18
Eiber, Die Sozialdemokratie in der Emigration, pCLXII. Gordon-Walker was elected MP in 1945, appointed PPS to
Herbert Morrison and a year later Foreign Office Minister for Commonwealth Affairs. During the war he worked for
the BBC on propaganda broadcasts to Germany, assisted by German exiles and Neu Beginnen members. See
Patrick Gordon-Walker, Political Diaries 1932-1971 (London: The Historians’ Press, 1991)
19
Albu, Back Bench Technocrat, pII/11. Socialist Clarity Group papers, (in CAC AP 17/1, 17/2) refer to Neu
Beginnen members attending meetings or writing for the journal, including Paul and Evelyn Anderson and Richard
(Rix) Löwenthal.
20
Robert G. W. Kirk, ‘Between the Clinic and the Laboratory: Ethology and Pharmacology in the Work of Michael
Robin Alexander Chance, c.1946–1964’, Medical History, October 2009, pp513-536
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2766138/ accessed 1 Feb. 2012]
21
Jon and David Kimche, The Secret Roads: the “Illegal” Migration of a People 1938-1948 (London: Secker and
Warburg, 1954)
16
131
that of his family, which made his struggle against the Nazis personal as well as political.
22
During the war, he made tentative arrangements to leave for the United States if necessary
and ‘organise resistance from there.'
23
His wife and family had already moved to the US.
24
He referred to his feelings about going as a Jew to Germany immediately after the war only
25
occasionally in his letters, diaries and subsequent memoirs.
In June 1946 he visited a
distant relation of his in Berlin, Käthe Schmidt, born Albu. He wrote to his wife that her
reaction on meeting him ‘only increased my ambivalence towards this extraordinary nation.
How these people are still alive & (nearly) sane is beyond me.’
26
In his memoirs, he added
after describing meeting another relative: ‘Only those who lived during those appalling years
while the Nazis ruled Germany can appreciate my astonishment and emotion at first
discovering these two relatives alive.’
27
Albu wrote in his memoirs that his links with Neu Beginnen contributed to the development of
his political thinking. His political education, which had started under the influence of Wells
and Shaw, R.H. Tawney, the Clarion Dramatic Society and the Independent Labour Party,
progressed through discussions with his friends in Neu Beginnen to a better appreciation of
‘the brutality of fascism’ and an interest in the psychology of human behaviour. It led him to
adopt ‘a more pragmatic and sceptical view of the possibilities of rapid political change’,
confirmed his ‘dislike of Communist methods’ and reinforced his belief that ‘in Britain
significant change would only be achieved by a reinvigorated Labour Party.’
28
His political
development eventually resulted in a firm commitment to technocratic democratic socialism.
As Labour MPs in the 1950s and 1960s, both Albu and Gordon-Walker were strong
supporters of the revisionist, right-wing of the party.
22
Albu, Back Bench Technocrat, pII/24
Ibid
Ibid, pI/15
25
E.g. Ibid, pIV/21, Albu wrote that, although he was not a Zionist, ‘Events of the previous five years had inevitably
stirred up profound emotional feelings among British Jews such as myself, aware that only the Channel and the
Royal Air Force had enabled us to escape the holocaust in which the vast majority of our fellow Jews on the
Continent of Europe had been coldly and scientifically destroyed. For them a haven from persecution and from their
memories was urgent and essential.’
26
AP 12/3, letter to his wife, 9 June 1946
27
Albu, Back Bench Technocrat, pIII/8
28
Albu, Back Bench Technocrat, pII/11
23
24
132
Allan Flanders and the Internationaler Sozialisticher Kampfbund (ISK)
‘After a fight against my love for my parents, especially my mother,
my ideals in scientific research, and the fear of being stranded afterwards
without trade or profession, I decided to give up any results my scholarships
might bring and go to the Walkemühle…’
29
Allan Flanders, date unknown, probably 1940s
30
Allan Flanders succeeded Albu as head of the ‘German Political Department’ in the Control
Commission’s Political Division, from May 1946 until the end of 1947. He had previously
been shortlisted by Hynd for the more senior position of Regional Commissioner, but
rejected by Attlee for not possessing the necessary experience.
31
Flanders had close links
with the German socialist organisation, the Internationaler Sozialistischer Kampfbund, (ISK)
and was the leading figure in its British arm, the Socialist Vanguard Group.
29
32
The ISK was
MRC MSS.173/17/4, Flanders’ ISK membership application, 2 Aug. 1930
Photograph from Saran, Never Give Up
FO 371/55612, ‘Appointment of Regional Commissioners’
32
On the ISK and Socialist Vanguard Group see Kelly, Ethical Socialism and the Trade Unions; Saran, Never Give
Up; Geoff Spencer, Beloved Alien: Walter Fliess 1901-1985 (Vancouver, British Columbia and Donhead St. Andrew,
Wiltshire: Privately printed, 1985); Christian Bailey, ‘The European Discourse in Germany, 1939-1950: Three Case
Studies’, German History, Vol.28, No.4, December 2010, pp453-478; Mark Minion, ‘Left, Right or European? Labour
and Europe in the 1940s: The case of the Socialist Vanguard Group’, European Review of History: Revue
30
31
133
unusual among socialist groups in taking its ideology not from Marxist economics, but from
the ethical principles of Kant, as interpreted by the founder of the group, Leonard Nelson, a
professor of philosophy at Göttingen University. In keeping with Kant’s ‘categorical
imperative’, their brand of ethical socialism included a belief in the equal moral value of all
men and women, the need for individuals to act not in their own selfish interest but in
accordance with rationally derived universal principles, and opposition to exploitation of all
kinds: of peasants by landowners, of workers by capitalists, of the poor by the rich, or more
generally of the weak by the powerful. ISK members placed an exceptionally high value on
independent thought, believing that all problems were capable of resolution by open and
rational discussion among suitably qualified and trained individuals. They were opposed to
all forms of dependency which limited the ability of people to think for themselves, including
belief in any form of revealed religion. This extended to the dependence of children on their
parents, which, they believed, had to be counteracted by educating children from an early
age at an institution in which they would learn to think for themselves, in accordance with
suitable ethical principles.
33
The organisation was openly elitist and anti-democratic. They believed that social behaviour
was governed by universal laws, in the same way as the physical universe was governed by
the laws of mathematics. In their view, the best way for a group of people to make a decision
that affected them all, was not to leave this to chance through the process of voting, but to
entrust the decision to an elite leader or group of leaders, whose rigorous ethical training
enabled them to act fairly and take the interests of all into account. The resulting tendency
towards authoritarianism was tempered by a culture of open discussion, with the leaders
consulting each other and encouraging constructive criticism.
34
The ISK was an unusual
organisation that can perhaps be best understood as a combination of a well-run business,
progressive educational institution and fundamentalist religious sect, together with the
utopian (or dystopian) elitism of the rulers of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.
européenne d’histoire, Vol.7, No.2, July 2010, pp229-248; R.M. Douglas, 'No Friend of Democracy: The Socialist
Vanguard Group 1941-50', Contemporary British History, Vol.16, No.4, pp51-86; Lawrence Black, Social
Democracy as a Way of Life: Fellowship and the Socialist Union, 1951-59’, Twentieth Century British History,
Vol.10, No.4,1999, pp499-539; Eiber, Die Sozialdemokratie in der Emigration; Röder, Die deutschen sozialistischen
Exilgruppen in Großbritannien; Hellmut Becker, Willi Eichler, Gustav Heckmann (eds.), Erziehung und Politik:
Minna Specht zu ihrem 80. Geburtstag (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Öffentliches Leben, 1960)
33
Spencer, Beloved Alien, p18; Hanna Bertholet, ‘Gedanken über die Walkemühle’ in Becker, Eichler, Heckmann
(eds.), Erziehung und Politik, pp269-286. Children at the organisation’s school, the Walkemühle were not allowed to
write to their parents and visits to the school by parents were restricted to one day a year.
34
Douglas, 'No Friend of Democracy: The Socialist Vanguard Group 1941-50', pp53-55
134
Allan Flanders was recruited to the ISK in 1928, when he was 18 years old and still at
school, after a chance meeting with an ISK member who was visiting Britain to recruit new
35
members.
After its founder, Leonard Nelson, died in 1927, the ISK’s political activities were
led by his former assistant, Willi Eichler, while the educational side of the organisation was
run by Minna Specht, who, with Nelson, had founded their educational establishment, the
Walkemühle in 1924.
36
Flanders decided to leave Britain to attend a three year course at the
Walkemühle, in preference to attending university and pursuing a career in scientific
research. The school was small, taking no more than six students at one time on a three
year course for young adults aged 17-20. In addition to academic study, the curriculum
included practical subjects, such as woodwork and metalwork, and political education in the
form of attending local Nazi rallies and speaking out in opposition.
37
After a year at the school, Flanders formally applied to join the ISK. His application has
survived in the archives and reveals the level of commitment the organisation expected of its
members. In answer to the questions: ‘why I wish to enter the ISK’ and ‘why I am a socialist’,
he wrote that:
I am convinced it is my duty to fight against the injustice that I know to exist in the world. I
know I can only do this by supporting the political struggle and the establishment of a just
state … I have convinced myself that I am prepared and able to give up all claims on a
private life and always follow the decisions of the ISK.
38
He had to be sponsored by two members, declare that he was not a member of any religious
organisation and certify not only that he was a vegetarian, but that he had visited a
slaughterhouse and so understood, from his personal experience of the animals’ interest in
35
Kelly, Ethical Socialism and the Trade Unions, p7; MRC MSS.173/17/4, Flanders’ ISK membership application, 2
Aug. 1930
36
‘Lebensdaten Minna Spechts’ in Becker, Eichler, Heckmann, (eds.), Erziehung und Politik, p402. The
Walkemühle was one of a number of progressive boarding schools, known as Landerziehungsheime, created as
part of a European movement for educational reform which aimed to educate the whole person, influenced by the
ideas of Pestalozzi and Fröbel in Switzerland and Germany, and Thomas Arnold in Britain. Other writers (e.g.
Douglas, 'No Friend of Democracy’, p58), give slightly different dates for the foundation of the Walkemühle, but this
source seems the most reliable, stating that work started in 1923 and the school opened in Easter 1924.
37
Kelly, Ethical Socialism and the Trade Unions, p16; Allan Flanders, ‘Constant Adventure’ and Hanna Bertholet,
‘Gedanken über die Walkemühle’ in Becker, Eichler, Heckmann (eds.), Erziehung und Politik, pp317-322, pp269286. For a history of the school see Rudolf Gisselmann, Geschichten von der Walkemühle
[http://www.allerart.de/walkemuehle/index.shtml accessed 1 Feb. 2012]
38
MRC MSS.173/17/4, Flanders’ ISK membership application, 2 Aug. 1930
135
life in the face of death, that it was wrong for people to exploit animals for food, when they
could survive perfectly well without doing so.
39
Flanders returned to Britain in 1932, shortly before the Walkemühle was closed by the Nazis.
Over the next ten years he worked as a door-to-door salesman and technical draughtsman
in Sheffield and London, while living in communal houses with other members and helping to
organise the tiny English branch of the ISK, which never comprised more than 26
40
members,
including three of his English comrades who had attended the Walkemühle and
a few German ISK members who had escaped from Germany and obtained permits to enter
Britain. Marriage and sexual relations were discouraged, as a distraction from their more
41
important political work.
At first, the English group referred to themselves as a branch of
‘Militant Socialist International’ and sold copies of the (German) ISK journal translated into
English. After the ISK was banned by the Nazis they published their own paper, The
Vanguard, renamed Socialist Vanguard from 1936, re-launched in September 1940 as
Commentary, and renamed from 1941 until it closed in 1979, Socialist Commentary.
42
In 1943, the ISK leadership, then in exile in London, decided that the English branch should
operate independently.
43
Though still affiliated to ISK, they adopted the name Socialist
Vanguard Group. Ironically, given its origins, Socialist Commentary has been regarded by at
least one historian as the ‘house-journal of Labour Party revisionists’
answer to Tribune’
45
44
and ‘the right wing’s
This is perhaps overstating the case, but it is remarkable that a group
whose origins lay in German revolutionary socialism became part of the British Labour Party
establishment, and the journal’s editor from 1946 to 1979, Rita Hinden, was included with
39
Ibid
Kelly, Ethical Socialism and the Trade Unions, p19
Ibid, p20, p23; Black, ‘Social Democracy as a Way of Life’, p528. Marriage for political reasons was accepted. In
1933 Flanders underwent a ‘marriage of convenience’ with a leading German ISK member, Mary Saran, so that she
could enter Britain. Other German ISK members entered marriages of convenience in order to acquire British
citizenship, including the leader of the London group in exile, Grete Herrmann, (Margaret Henry), a distinguished
quantum physicist. See http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.3986.pdf accessed 1 Feb. 2012
42
Kelly, Ethical Socialism and the Trade Unions, p20
43
Eiber, Die Sozialdemokratie in der Emigration, pCXXIX, p776
44
Minion, ‘Left, Right or European?’ p232; Douglas, 'No Friend of Democracy’, p72; Black, ‘Social Democracy as a
Way of Life’, p503. Mary Saran commented later that ‘It often made me furious to see SC referred to as “right-wing”’
(Saran, Never Give Up, p98).
45
Kenneth O. Morgan, Labour People: Leaders and Lieutenants: Hardie to Kinnock (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1987), p242
40
41
136
Keir Hardie and Neil Kinnock in Kenneth O. Morgan’s pantheon of twenty-eight Labour
People.
46
After he left Germany at the end of 1947, Flanders spent a year in the United States, and
then built a successful career in academia as one of the UK’s most highly respected experts
on industrial relations. He continued to act as chair of the editorial board of Socialist
Commentary until he died in 1973, aged 63.
47
Albu and Flanders had much in common and shared similar views. Flanders stayed with
Albu in Berlin when he moved there in August 1945. Albu commented in a letter to his wife
that ‘Allan is staying with me & we get on quite well – he is not a bit narrow-minded!’
48
As
Albu was the more senior and influential of the two and there is considerably more material
relating to him in the archives, the following sections discuss his work to a greater extent
than that of Flanders. The conclusions drawn from the material, however, relate to both as
committed international socialists. Differences between them are discussed in the text.
5.2 Democratic socialist visions for post-war Germany
‘A federation of free, democratic Socialist states of Europe is the only peace settlement
which can ensure that the tragic history of the last twenty years is never again repeated.’
49
The Socialist Clarity Group
Shortly after the outbreak of war, Albu prepared a draft ‘manifesto’ for his comrades in the
Socialist Clarity Group. His views reflected those of his German friends in Neu Beginnen and
many others on the political left in Britain and Germany. They argued that the war had been
caused by the ‘ruling classes’ of all countries. In Germany, the industrialists, the ‘militarists’
in the army and the landowning Prussian Junkers were to blame, not the workers who, they
believed, opposed the war and would eventually understand that their true interests lay in
supporting a socialist revolution. The logical consequence of these views was that an Allied
46
Ibid, pp239-245
Kelly, Ethical Socialism and the Trade Unions, p57
AP 12/3, letter to his wife, 14 Aug. 1946
49
AP 7/1, ‘Group Material’ Aug. 1939 – Aug. 1941, ‘AA manifesto’
47
48
137
victory would not in itself prevent a third world war, as competition among the ruling classes
of different nationalities would continue unchecked. The only way to achieve a lasting peace
was through the creation of a new socialist world order.
50
Similar views continued to be expressed during the first three years of the war in the
Socialist Clarity Group’s journal Labour Discussion Notes. Albu and Gordon-Walker were
two of the four members of the publications committee, so, although most articles were
unsigned and cannot be directly attributed to any one individual, they can be taken as
indicative of Albu’s thinking at the time. In May 1941 the journal published an article
‘prepared following discussions with German socialists’ in response to Vansittart’s Black
Record.
51
Vansittart was a former Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office who
gave a series of radio talks in December 1940, arguing that all Germans were aggressive,
militaristic, and could not be trusted. Edited extracts were published in the Sunday Times
and the full text printed as a pamphlet, Black Record, which sold half a million copies in the
first year.
52
To counter Vansittart’s claim that all Germans were to blame for the war, not just the Nazis,
the Labour Discussion Notes article argued that Germans were not inevitably aggressive as,
for the greater part of its history, Germany had been ‘the battleground for other nations’ wars
rather than themselves invaders.’ The causes of the undoubted aggression of the previous
75 years, the article continued, lay not in the German character, but in the political and social
structures of the German Reich created by Bismarck in 1871: the excessive power of the
landowning Junkers, the army and the big industrialists, the ‘failure of the German middle
classes’ and of social democracy in 1918-20, and divisions in the working class movement.
The article concluded by claiming that the working class was the only democratic force left in
Germany and a peaceful Europe could only be achieved by ‘a thorough and completed
democratic revolution in Germany.’ After the end of the war and the defeat of the Nazis, the
50
Ibid
Robert Vansittart, Black Record (London, Hamish Hamilton, 1941)
52
On Vansittart and ‘Vansittartism’ see Jörg Später, Vansittart: britische Debatten über Deutsche und Nazis 19021945, (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2003); Isabelle Tombs, ‘The victory of socialist “Vansittartism”: Labour and the
German question, 1941-1945’, Twentieth Century British History, Vol.7, (1996), pp287-309
51
138
Allies should help and not hinder the German people in their destruction of the power of the
ruling classes.
53
From the end of 1942 there were no further articles on Germany in Labour Discussion Notes.
Perhaps the Socialist Clarity Group felt constrained by the withdrawal of official support for
SPD exiles by the Labour Party, following criticism in the press of German exiles living in
Britain.
54
There is also evidence that the views of some Neu Beginnen members were
starting to change, and they no longer believed as firmly as they once had in the opposition
of the working class to Hitler and the prospects for a revolution in Germany. When German
prisoners of war were captured in large numbers in North Africa and Europe from 1943, Neu
Beginnen members and other German exiles were involved in their interrogation and
subsequently with re-education activities in POW camps. They realised that the great
majority of ordinary German soldiers still believed in the ultimate victory of Nazism and that,
as long as Hitler remained in power, the prospects for effective opposition, let alone a
revolution within Germany, were minimal.
55
There is no evidence that Albu had any particular interest in post-war planning for Germany
after the end of 1942. He was more concerned with Britain. He was interested in industrial
psychology and production planning and control. He wrote a Fabian pamphlet on
management and was active in the Society, joining the executive committee in 1943.
56
He
tried to further his political ambitions through being adopted as a Labour Party prospective
parliamentary candidate. He was shortlisted for two constituencies but not selected.
57
He
wrote in his memoirs that, though excited by the Labour victory in 1945, he was disappointed
to have played no part in it. He ‘hoped and half expected’ that the new Labour government
would find some use for his services but, when Hynd telephoned him in early 1946
suggesting he should go to Germany, ‘the idea of taking part in what seemed the impossible
task of restoring democracy to Germany and deciding its future was not one I would have
53
CAC AP Box 14, ‘Causes of German Aggression’ in Labour Discussion Notes, 22 May 1941. A note stated that
the article had been written following discussions with ‘Paul Sering, a member of the Neubeginnen group.’ ‘Paul
Sering’ was a pseudonym used by Richard Löwenthal.
54
Später, Vansittart, p355; Eiber, Die Sozialdemokratie in der Emigration, pLXI; Isabelle Tombs, ‘The victory of
socialist “Vansittartism”’
55
Eiber, Die Sozialdemokratie in der Emigration, pCLXIV; Hurwitz, Die Anfänge des Widerstands, p60
56
Albu, Back Bench Technocrat, pII/27, pII/29
57
Ibid, pII/31; Jonathan Schneer, Labour’s Conscience: The Labour Left 1945-51 (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1988),
p166. Albu lost to Geoffrey Bing in Hornchurch and to Ian Mikardo in Reading.
139
chosen myself.’ Nevertheless, he accepted the position on a temporary contract for three
months, with no clear brief from Hynd as to what the job entailed.
58
The contrast between his strong commitment to international socialism before the war,
connections with Neu Beginnen, active political engagement with the Socialist Clarity Group
and the Fabian Society, and his uncertainty about what to do in 1945 is striking. He wished
to contribute to the post-war reconstruction of Britain, ideally as a Member of Parliament or
through being offered a position by the Labour government, but was not given the
opportunity to do so. He had strong socialist principles, but the international situation was
very different in 1945 from the 1930s, and he was hesitant about accepting a position in
Germany.
The ISK, the Socialist Vanguard Group and Socialist Commentary
The ISK had a different vision for the post-war future of Germany from Neu Beginnen. They
were equally committed to the defeat of fascism, but did not share Neu Beginnen’s belief in
the opposition of the working class to Hitler, or the prospects for a socialist revolution. The
ISK worked by trying to influence organisations from within. They possessed strong
principles, which they defined as the achievement of the ‘just state’, but were prepared to
compromise if necessary and act pragmatically in accordance with a principle they described
as ‘ethical realism.’
59
The ethical principles Flanders learnt from the ISK and at the Walkemühle were an
undoubted influence for the rest of his life. Mary Saran, who had known and worked with him
since his time at the school, and after emigrating to Britain in 1933 lived with him and other
ISK members in the 1930s and 1940s in a communal house in London,
60
wrote that ‘The
most important influence in shaping Allan’s personality was … the Walkemühle. This is true
of the development of his ideas, his sense of public responsibility and his method of
teaching.’
61
He was opposed to ‘power politics’ and the division of Europe into spheres of
influence, calling for a socialist-led Britain to play a lead in a European federation.
58
62
Until
Albu, Back Bench Technocrat, pII/33
Minion, ‘Left, Right or European?’, p231-2, p247; Black, ‘Social Democracy as a Way of Life’, p501
Saran, Never Give Up, pp82-3
61
MRC FP, MSS.65/199, material collected by Mary Saran on Allan Flanders’s life and work. Typescript draft copy
by Saran for an unpublished entry for the Dictionary of Labour Biography, headed ‘Allan Flanders – Socialist,
Industrial Relations Expert, Public Servant’ with note in pencil ‘Marked copy sent to John Saville, 23.11.75’, p11
62
Minion, ‘Left, Right or European?’, pp239-240
59
60
140
1945, however, he did not show any particular interest in post-war policy for Germany and
does not appear to have been involved in discussions with the ISK leadership on the subject.
He joined the local Sheffield Fabian Society and in 1942 became branch secretary.
63
In 1941
he wrote a pamphlet, Wage Policy in Wartime, which helped him succeed in his application
as one of three Research Assistants at the TUC, from 310 applicants.
64
His biographer, John
Kelly, argued that his thinking evolved over this period, 1941-45, towards abandoning
revolutionary socialism in favour of the transformation of the economy through state
planning. In keeping with his ISK principles, he considered that monopoly and vested
interests were the problem, not private ownership of the means of production, and he came
to see nationalisation as a means to achieve control of the economy, not as an end in itself.
65
By the end of 1945, Flanders was uncertain whether to continue at the TUC, as he
considered the job had ‘lost most of its political importance’, but he had no alternative
position in mind.
66
The executive officials of the Socialist Vanguard Group discussed whether
he should apply for the position of secretary of the Fabian Society, but were concerned that
much of his time would be wasted in internal politics and agreed the position was not ideal.
67
A month later the executive met again to discuss his decision to accept a position in
Germany. The minutes listed nine reasons for accepting, including the influence he could
have on British policy, the influence on colleagues he would be working with, valuable new
contacts, raising the status of the group through one of their members having such a
responsible position and, from a personal point of view, the educational value of his working
in a challenging position that would place high demands upon him.
68
There was no reference
to any specific results they hoped he could achieve. Perhaps in such a tightly knit group, this
was taken for granted and not considered worth recording. Rather than promoting specific
policies, they aimed to further the influence of the group through their educational activities
and the everyday life and work of their members.
63
Kelly, Ethical Socialism and the Trade Unions, p57
Ibid, p54
65
Ibid p57; Allan Flanders, ‘Cartels – A Challenge’, in Socialist Commentary, August 1945, pp145-9
66
MRC SVG MSS.173/3/4, Minutes Agendas of Exec: 1943-48, Executive meeting Nov. 1945
67
Ibid
68
Ibid, Dec. 1945
64
141
5.3 Promoting political renewal and a positive socialist policy
‘The only real hope of a defence against authoritarianism whether of the extreme right
or extreme left in Germany, as in the whole of Western Europe, lies in a policy of
progressive social change.’
69
In early 1946, when they left Britain to take up their positions in Germany, Albu and Flanders
could look back to at least fifteen years of their lives dominated by the struggle against
fascism, together with the belief that once victory had been secured it would be possible to
create a better socialist order that would make any future war impossible. However the
actual situation appeared uncertain and precarious, despite the Labour Party election victory
in 1945. They neither expected nor chose to go to Germany, but both accepted the
opportunity to do so when asked by their former political colleague and ally, John Hynd.
They were familiar with the country through their close links with German socialist exiles in
London, but had no clear plan for what should be done, apart from a perceived need to
follow a ‘positive policy of social change’
70
which, so they believed, would encourage
democratic forces in Germany, prevent the return of National Socialism and create better
living conditions for the great majority of the population.
The appointment of Albu and Flanders by Hynd to influential positions in Germany, together
with other evidence collected for this study, runs counter to the widely held view that German
socialists in exile in London had very little influence on British policy.
71
This was undoubtedly
true for the duration of the war and the three month period leading to the Potsdam
Agreement in August 1945, but not subsequently.
72
The Labour Party, which had invited the
SPD leadership in exile to move to London from Paris in 1940, after the defeat of France,
ceased all official contacts and withdrew their political and financial support in 1942, in an
acrimonious internal dispute within the Party which has been termed ‘The victory of socialist
69
AP 28/3, memorandum, 14 March 1946
Ibid
71
E.g. Charles Wheeler, Foreword to Germany 1944: The British Soldier’s Pocketbook (Kew, Richmond, Surrey:
The National Archives, 2006), pvi
72
In the course of my research I have found many examples of German exiles working in various positions for
Military Government or the Control Commission, and subsequently in influential positions in the Federal Republic of
Germany. This study supports Reusch’s claim, made in 1980 and still valid today, that the ‘widespread view’ that the
British made little use of the knowledge of German émigrés needed to be ‘heavily qualified’. Reusch wrote that,
during his research on the organisational structure of the occupation, he found many examples of German exiles
working during and after the war in Foreign Office research and intelligence departments, as legal advisors, in
SHAEF, in the Control Commission press and other departments and in the Bizonal control office in Frankfurt. See
Ulrich Reusch, ‘Die Londoner Institutionen der britischen Deutschlandpolitik 1943-48. Eine behördengeschichtliche
Untersuchung’, Historisches Jahrbuch 100 (1980), p341.
70
142
73
Vansittartism’,
referring to Labour Party members who supported views expressed by the
former Foreign Office Permanent Under-Secretary, Robert Vansittart.
74
In late 1945 and
1946, however, the position was reversed and the new Labour government showed a
cautious but clear preference for the socialist SPD over other parties in Germany. In addition
to John Hynd’s appointment as minister for Germany, two other Labour Party members who
had supported the German SPD leadership in exile during the war and argued against the
‘Vansittartists’, Philip Noel-Baker and Patrick Gordon-Walker, were given junior positions in
the government. The ‘Fight for Freedom Publishing Company’, the organisation which had
championed the ‘Vansittartist’ position became defunct
75
and one of its leading supporters,
William Gillies, was replaced as secretary of the Labour Party International Subcommittee by
Denis Healey, who was more sympathetic to the German socialists.
76
Albu and Flanders therefore had some grounds for optimism in early 1946 when they took up
their positions as members of the British Military Government. They could hope for support
for an active socialist policy in Germany from at least some members of the government in
London.
77
Their friends among the German socialists in exile in London had overcome
earlier divisions and by the end of 1945 had re-established contact with the re-formed SPD
in Germany.
78
Unfortunately, these early hopes were not fulfilled. As discussed in the
previous chapter, Albu and Hynd were able to secure modifications to Ingrams’ proposals for
reform in one area, electoral procedure, which they were concerned would disadvantage the
SPD.
79
This section discusses Albu’s and Flanders’ relations with their British colleagues and
the influence Albu exerted on British policy in two further areas, the campaign to prevent the
‘Fusion’ of the socialist SPD with the communist KPD, and the devolution of power from
British Military Government to German regional and local authorities. It concludes by
exploring the reasons for their growing disillusionment and pessimistic outlook for the future
political development of Germany.
73
Tombs, ‘The victory of socialist “Vansittartism”’
In a series of radio talks in December 1940, later published as a pamphlet, Black Record, Vansittart argued that
all Germans were aggressive, militaristic and could not be trusted, making no exception for socialist or communist
exiles in London or other German political opponents of Nazism. See above, p138
75
Später, Vansittart, p396
76
Healey, The Time of my Life, p74
77
See for example Editorial, ‘Liberated Britain’ in Socialist Commentary, August 1945, pp142-5: ‘A victory for the
Left in one country is also a victory for the Left everywhere.’
78
Eiber, Die Sozialdemokratie in der Emigration
79
See above pp115-119
74
143
Relations with colleagues
Hynd, Albu and Flanders came from different social backgrounds and possessed different
political views from the military generals and Foreign Office diplomats, so it is not surprising
that there were differences of opinion. Montgomery wrote on the cover of one document in
his personal papers that Hynd was ‘utterly useless.’
80
Albu did not think highly of
Montgomery’s political judgement either, referring to his February 1946 memorandum on
their task in Germany as ‘a policy statement of boy scout naivete’.
81
The generals were not generally sympathetic towards a policy of supporting one political
party over another. General Richards, the Commander of 8 Corps, responsible for the
administration of Schleswig Holstein, wrote to Robertson in April 1946 complaining about
what he considered to be political bias and interference in the work of his officers:
I think the trouble is this. The Political Division – and it is not for me to say whether they are
right or wrong – appear determined to put SPD members wherever they can into positions
of authority and to eject everything to the Right of this …. The means adopted to achieve
this tend to be underhand and consist in proving that every Right-wing person is
undesirable and unpleasant while everyone to the Left is excellent – a demonstrably idiotic
82
assumption.
Robertson’s reply was sympathetic. He confirmed that the Labour government in London
supported the SPD and wished to see them appointed to positions of authority in Germany,
but suggested there was a ‘conflict between this policy and that of placing in authority
persons having the backing of the majority of the population.’
83
Albu, in turn, considered
Richards’ predecessor, Evelyn Barker, a ‘bloody reactionary’ who ‘practically lived with the
Bismarck family’ and ‘got on very well with the captured German generals.’ He was appalled
when Barker was sent to command British troops in Palestine.
84
It would, however, be wrong to over-emphasise the differences. Flanders objected to ‘the
political outlook of many officers in Military Government (military and civilian)’
85
but claimed
to have successfully influenced the views of his immediate superiors in Political Division,
80
IWM BLM 170
Albu, Back Bench Technocrat , pIII/2
82
FO 1030/307, letter from Richards to Robertson, 18 April 1946
83
FO 1030/307, reply from Robertson to Richards, 25 April 1946
84
AP 12/3, letter to his wife, 3 Aug. 1946
85
‘The British Zone’, Socialist Commentary, Nov. 1946
81
144
both of whom were traditionally minded Foreign Office diplomats.
86
Albu’s personal diaries
for his first four months in Germany, together with his letters to his wife over the same
period, show that his attitude to his British colleagues was ambivalent. He had little time for
Ingrams, whom he considered well-intentioned, but over-mechanical in his approach,
inflexible in his ideas and ‘such a waffler’.
87
He had more respect for the senior generals,
some of whom appeared surprisingly receptive to his ideas. He wrote to his wife that:
Whatever we are doing to the Germans the job of political education we are doing on the
British army & its brighter officers is terrific. They seem to like it. The sincerity & as
Robertson says ‘sense of mission’ is first class.
88
He told her that he had discussed the need for a ‘positive socialist policy’ with Generals
Robertson, Templer and Balfour.
89
He attempted to explain to them that socialists were
suspicious of big business men and supposedly politically neutral administrators, who
needed to be removed from power as much as the Nazis. In a social revolution, he
continued, the ruling classes would have been purged, but this had not happened in
Germany and it was now difficult for Military Government to ‘make a revolution at the point of
a bayonet.’
90
Albu found Robertson impressive at their first meeting and they appeared to develop an
excellent working relationship, despite differences in their background and political outlook.
This may have been helped by a sense of mutual respect, both having trained as engineers
and having managed sizable factories, Robertson for Dunlop in South Africa and Albu for
Aladdin in West London. Initially, Robertson appeared to have been suspicious of Albu,
concerned at his direct line to Hynd.
91
However, in March he offered him a senior post in the
administration. According to Albu, Robertson told him that they ‘needed someone like me’
and ‘although I wasn’t indispensable, he’d rather have me than a new man … I rather think
that from R[obertson] it was a pretty high compliment.’
92
The post on offer was that of
‘Deputy Chairman of the Governmental Sub-Commission’, one of two sub-commissions that,
86
FP MSS.65/199, ‘Personal Notes’, Oct. 1947
AP 12/3, letter to his wife, 3 Aug. 1946
AP 12/3, undated letter to his wife, postmarked 11 Feb. 1946
89
AP 12/3, letter to his wife, 16 Feb. 1946
90
AP 13/2, diary entries for 12 Feb, 14 Feb 1946
91
FO 1030/303, letter from Robertson to Street, 26 March 1946
92
AP 12/3, letter to his wife, 22 March 1946
87
88
145
according to Robertson, would determine policy and ‘really rule the country.’
93
£2,000 plus allowances, was generous, equivalent to that of a Major General.
The salary, at
94
Albu decided
to accept and in April moved into a ‘palatial office’ in the generals’ suite in the rather grandly
named Lancaster House, the British headquarters building in Berlin.
95
Yet, despite his senior position within the administration, Albu considered that his influence
declined. To some extent this may have been due to his political isolation. He wrote to his
wife that he felt lonely sometimes and had no friends. He told her that he got on well with his
immediate superior, General Erskine, the Chairman of the Sub-Commission, who accepted
his ideas and put his authority behind them, but his effectiveness was limited by the lack of
firm policy direction from London.
96
He wrote around the same time that he felt increasingly
isolated:
what with reactionary officers and utterly reactionary F.O. [Foreign Office] boys. T G
Erskine seems both intelligent and politically reasonable. And there are many good
soldiers. But good tho’ they are at their jobs – so many have this militarism (almost
Prussian) repressed emotionalism [sic] which makes them give vent to the most
obscurantist ideas on subjects outside their own jobs. This includes an intense fear of
‘politics’
97
His position in the administration seemed to be strengthened when he replaced Ingrams as
Chairman of the Standing Committee on Governmental and Administrative Structure
(SCOGAS) which, he told his wife, was the committee that would ‘do the real policy stuff on
the future constitution of this country’,
98
but his ability to implement policy was still limited by
Hynd’s lack of influence in the government at home and his own lack of executive authority.
The Fusion Campaign in Berlin
The ‘Fusion’ campaign in Berlin in early 1946, for and against the proposed merger of the
socialist SPD with the communist KPD, was the first time after the war that the British
authorities in Germany openly collaborated politically with Germans, their former enemy, in
93
AP 12/3, letter to his wife, 26 March 1946
AP 12/3, letter of appointment, 31 May 1946; letter to his wife, 26 June 1946
95
AP 12/3, letter to his wife, 14 April 1946
96
AP 12/3, letter to his wife, 9 June 1946
97
AP 12/3, letter to his wife, 3 Aug 1946
98
Ibid
94
146
opposition to the declared policy of the Soviet Union, their former wartime ally.
99
As such it
can be considered a precursor, or the first manifestation, of the Cold War within Germany,
and an illustration of the processes by which many democratic socialists in both Britain and
Germany, including Albu and Flanders, started to transfer their allegiance from support for a
wartime ‘popular front’ with the communists against fascism, to an anti-communist alliance
with conservative political parties in Britain, the US and Western Europe, to oppose what
they perceived as Communist Party ‘totalitarianism’.
Fusion of the SPD and KPD was promoted by the Soviet Union, as a way of securing an
electoral majority for a merged party that could not be achieved by the communists alone.
The origins of the issue lay in the view, widely held among members of both parties, that had
they worked together more effectively in the 1930s, they could have prevented Hitler and the
Nazis seizing power. In December 1945, the two parties agreed to work together on a
common electoral programme.
100
In January 1946, the Central Committee of the SPD in
Berlin, under pressure from the Soviet occupation authorities, decided in favour of the
merger, but a significant number of SPD members remained opposed, unwilling to trust the
KPD, fearing domination from Moscow, and recalling the disputes of the early 1930s, when
the communists had labelled the SPD ‘social fascists’.
101
On 1 March 1946 a meeting of SPD
Berlin officials decided to hold a referendum on the issue, among members in the city.
102
Some of the British staff in the political and intelligence divisions of the Control Commission
in Berlin had been watching developments with concern as, if the merger between the two
parties were to go ahead, it would be possible for the Russians to control the whole city
through an elected German administration.
103
Furthermore, if the merger were subsequently
approved across all four zones, Russian influence, acting through a strong combined
German communist and socialist party, would extend to the western zones, arousing long-
99
On the Fusion campaign see the monumental work by Harold Hurwitz, Demokratie und Antikommunismus in
Berlin nach 1945: Vol.4, Die Anfänge des Widerstands (Cologne: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik, 1990). For a
contemporary British account see a report by Noel Annan in CAC AP 11/6 on ‘The campaign for Fusion of the
Social Democratic and Communist Parties in eastern Germany’ and his later book Noel Annan, Changing Enemies:
The Defeat and Regeneration of Germany (London: Harper Collins, 1995), pp187-197
100
AP 11/6, Noel Annan, ‘The campaign for Fusion of the Social Democratic and Communist Parties in eastern
Germany’, undated but marked in pencil ‘1946’
101
Jeffrey Herf, Divided Memory: The Nazi Past in the Two Germanys (Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard
University Press, 1997), p15. At a party conference in October 1932, Ernst Thälmann, KPD party leader, quoted
Stalin’s view that fascism and ‘social fascism’ were ‘twin brothers’.
102
Hurwitz, Die Anfänge des Widerstands, p864, pp1022ff
103
AP 11/6, Noel Annan, ‘The campaign for Fusion of the Social Democratic and Communist Parties’
147
standing fears of a German-Russian alliance
104
that could promote social revolution across
the whole of Europe, as the Comintern had attempted to do in the 1920s. Official British
policy, however, was to remain neutral and not favour any one political party in Germany.
105
A key role in the internal German opposition to Fusion was played by around 20-30 former
Neu Beginnen members who had remained in Germany and re-formed as a group in Berlin
after the end of the war.
106
Although Neu Beginnen had supported cooperation with Russia
against Nazi Germany, the group’s members remained deeply suspicious of Communist
Party tactics. Similar views were shared by the great majority of socialists in exile in London,
who had resisted all attempts during the war to form a united front with the communists.
107
Kurt Schumacher, the leader of the SPD in the British Zone, was also firmly opposed to any
form of cooperation with the Communist Party.
To some extent, therefore, the Fusion campaign was a battle for control of the SPD. The
Berlin central committee, pressurised by the Soviet Union, declared in favour of Fusion,
while the groups which opposed a merger with the Communists, including the newly formed
party in the British Zone and the London exiles, were supported by the Western Allies. The
stakes were high, as it was assumed that with the Nazis discredited and officially banned in
all zones, the SPD would win any election for a future German administration and whoever
controlled the SPD would control Germany.
At first, Albu took no part in these developments. Though fully aware of the situation, he
appeared uncertain what to do. Two days after his arrival, on 3 February 1946, he joined a
meeting arranged by Christopher Steel, the chief of the Political Division, with Otto
Grotewohl and Gustav Dahrendorf, the leaders of the Berlin SPD central committee, who
appeared to be looking for British support to resist Soviet pressure for Fusion, even though
they had already declared in favour of the merger. The meeting was not productive.
108
Albu
asked if an official statement from the Labour Party, opposing Fusion, would be helpful, but
104
Spencer Mawby, ‘Revisiting Rapallo: Britain, Germany and the Cold War, 1945-1955’ in Michael F. Hopkins,
Michael D. Kandiah and Gillian Staerck (eds.), Cold War Britain, 1945-1964 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003),
pp81-94
105
FO 1050/130
106
Hurwitz, Die Anfänge des Widerstands, pp33-50
107
Keßler, Kommunismuskritik im westlichen Nachkriegsdeutschland, pp74ff; Eiber, Die Sozialdemokratie in der
Emigration, pCVII, pp646-649
108
Grotewohl continued to support Fusion, despite personal reservations, and became the first prime minister
(Ministerpräsident) of the German Democratic Republic in 1949. Dahrendorf, however, changed sides shortly after
the meeting, left Berlin with British assistance and moved with his son, Ralph Dahrendorf, to the British Zone.
148
they doubted if this would make any difference.
109
Two weeks later Albu met Kurt Schmidt,
the leader of the Neu Beginnen group in Berlin and put him in touch with Schumacher, whom
his British colleagues had invited to Berlin to support those opposed to Fusion.
110
In early March, after the decision was taken at a meeting of Berlin SPD officials to hold a
referendum in the city on the issue, Albu finally decided that he needed to become involved
in the campaign. Using language that demonstrated the strength of his feelings, he noted in
his diary that he had decided to stay in Berlin until the referendum on 31 March ‘to try to
organise the majority which was being raped by the Russ[ians] & the KPD.’
111
He wrote later
that he was ‘risking his reputation’ as the official British policy at this time was not to engage
in internal German political disputes. The precariousness of his position was illustrated when
a small group of left wing Labour MPs in London took the opposite line to his, and sent a
message to the Berlin SPD central committee in support of Fusion. Albu and his colleagues
felt they had to counter this by holding a press conference to state that the message
reflected the views of only a small part of a very much larger Parliamentary Labour Party.
112
The campaign for and against Fusion became intense on both sides. The Russians, fearful
of the result, banned the referendum in their sector of Berlin, but it took place with US,
French and British support in the western sectors of the city. Albu still felt unable to declare
British opposition to Fusion openly, but on the day of the referendum he wrote an article in
the British licensed newspaper in Berlin urging SPD members to vote.
113
This amounted to
the same thing, as newspapers in the Soviet sector had announced there was no need for a
referendum, as seven out of the eight SPD districts in their sector had already decided in
favour of a united party.
114
The result of the referendum was a decisive majority against
Fusion, though voters also endorsed a second question, by a smaller majority, which
supported collaboration with the communists but not a merger of the parties.
115
As a result,
the SPD survived as an independent party in the western sectors of Berlin, whereas those
SPD members who supported Fusion went ahead and merged with the KPD to form the
109
AP 13/2, diary entry for 3 Feb. 1946
AP 13/2, diary entry for 25 Feb. 1946; AP 12/3, letter to his wife, 20 Feb. 1946
AP 13/2, diary entry for 19 March 1946
112
Albu, Back Bench Technocrat, pIII/17
113
Ibid
114
Hurwitz, Die Anfänge des Widerstands, pp1194-5
115
Ibid, p1218. 19,526 Berlin SPD members voted against and 2,937 in favour of immediate fusion; 14,763 for and
5,599 against collaboration. In total 23,775 members voted, out of 32,547 entitled to vote.
110
111
149
Socialist Unity Party (SED), the governing party in the Soviet Zone and subsequently in East
Germany, until reunification in 1990.
116
The result could be seen as a success for Albu, in securing victory for his Neu Beginnen
friends and the independence of the SPD in Berlin and the British Zone, but it was also a
failure, as the SPD remained divided and he was unable to prevent its merger with the
Communists in the Soviet Zone. The issue demonstrated how little scope he had for positive
action. British support for the opponents of Fusion was organised mainly through Intelligence
staff working for the Control Commission’s political division in Berlin and subject to approval
by Foreign Office officials in London.
117
In this as in many other issues, British influence was
limited to creating space for the Germans to make their own decisions. It did not extend to
determining the result.
Ordinance no. 57: The devolution of power to the German Länder
‘Some of you may think we are going a little too far in putting so much on the
Germans so short a time after the end of the war.’
118
Before leaving Germany in 1947, Albu oversaw the implementation of a number of
governmental reforms, which came under his area of responsibility.
119
These included the
reorganisation of the Länder in the British zone and the promulgation in December 1946 of
Military Government Ordinance no. 57, which provided for the devolution of powers to local
German administrations on a wide range of subjects, including education, local government
and health. Ulrich Reusch has argued that Ordinance 57 represented a turning point in
British policy,
120
and could be considered the ‘Occupation Statute for the British Zone’ as it
defined the powers of the German regional Land governments and legally regulated their
relationship with the British occupation authorities.
121
According to Reusch, the policy of
devolution of power was initiated by the Foreign Office,
116
122
but this study tends to support
Ibid, p1232, p1278
FO 371/55363
AP 11/1, script for radio talk by Albu on ‘Reform of Government in the British Zone’, March 1947
119
As Deputy Chairman of the Governmental Sub-Commission and, from July 1946, Chairman of SCOGAS, the
Standing Committee on Governmental and Administrative Structure
120
Reusch, ‘Die Londoner Institutionen’, p402
121
Reusch, Deutsches Berufsbeamtentum, pp363-4
122
Reusch, ‘Die Londoner Institutionen’, p402
117
118
150
Albu’s claim in his memoirs
123
that British policy on the issue of the devolution of power and
future federal structure of Germany was largely based on his and his colleagues’ work in
Germany, referring in particular to the view, outlined by Bevin in his speech in Parliament on
22 October 1946, that Germany should ‘avoid the two extremes of a loose confederation of
autonomous states and a unitary centralised state.’
124
The origins of Ordinance 57 and a policy of devolution can be traced to a memorandum
Robertson wrote a year earlier, in September 1945, on ‘The Evolution of Control of
Government in the British Zone’ from the military Corps Commanders to civilian regional
Commissioners.
125
Following comments from Control Commission staff, Montgomery issued
two instructions, in December 1945 and March 1946. At the end of the first, he stated clearly
that devolution of power to Germans was an essential part of the transfer from military to
civilian rule:
The real essence of the change … is that under Military Government we govern our zone
through the Germans … Civil control, on the other hand, means that the Germans govern
126
themselves subject to control and supervision by us.’
His second instruction, in March 1946, made a similar point more forcibly: ‘the best people to
deal with the many difficulties which beset GERMANY today are the Germans’, and there
was a need to ‘build up German administrations in our zone.’
127
The Foreign Office, at this stage, was reluctant to intervene directly, preferring to observe
and comment from the sidelines. An official minuted that Montgomery’s March memo was a
‘valuable piece of stocktaking’ and the views expressed looked ‘as if they owe a lot to
General Robertson’.
128
Another official commented that it was an ‘impressive document’,
though Troutbeck, head of the German Political Department, added a cautionary note
against proceeding too quickly:
Yes, but one wishes that we might be handing over a going concern to these new German
administrators. They will be weak and untried organisations, hardly capable of coping with
123
Albu, Back Bench Technocrat , pIII/27
Speech by Bevin, HC Deb. vol.427, c1510, in Beate Ruhm von Oppen (ed.), Documents on Germany under
Occupation 1945-1954 (London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1955), p182
125
FO 1051/224; FO 1050/138
126
Ibid; FO 1030/148, ‘The Evolution of Government in the British Zone’, 3 Dec. 1945
127
FO 1051/224, FO 1030/148 and BLM 88/8, ‘The Evolution of Government in the British Zone (II)’, 25 March 1946
128
FO 371/55612
124
151
starvation and widespread unemployment. And if they fail, the loss will not be theirs
129
alone.
It was not until June 1946, following the failure of the Allies at the Paris Council of Foreign
Ministers to agree a joint policy towards Germany, that Foreign Office officials decided to
take a more active role.
130
In order to minimise the risk of over-strengthening the powers of
any future central German government, Patrick Dean, who had replaced Troutbeck as head
of the Foreign Office German Political Department, laid down three principles from which all
policy should derive: maximum decentralisation of power from the centre to the regions and
localities; maximum devolution of power and responsibility to the Germans; and, subject to
the above, maximum acceptability to the Germans of future constitutional arrangements, to
ensure that these would last and not be changed by a future independent German
government.
131
In parallel with these developments, Albu, in his capacity as Deputy-President of the
Governmental Sub-Commission, had been working on the issue of the future governmental
structure of Germany. In June, he circulated a paper, ‘Germany: The nature of Federal
Government’, which showed he was thinking along similar lines to Dean in emphasising
decentralisation, devolution of power and acceptability to the Germans, except that in
accordance with his socialist principles, Albu placed a greater emphasis on the need for
centralised economic planning, in order to maintain social and economic stability and full
employment.
132
The key point Albu made in the paper was consistent with Foreign Office thinking, that the
failure by the Allies to agree on central administrations for Germany as a whole (at the Paris
Council of Foreign Ministers which was then in session) made it necessary to reorganise the
structure of government in the British Zone. After referring to federal arrangements in the
United States, Australia, Canada and Switzerland as possible models, he concluded that: ‘if
it is desired to weaken the future power of Germany to make war, as great a degree of
129
Ibid
FO 371/55614, C6002, ‘Development of Government in the British Zone’; FO 371/55591, C10014, ‘Future
political structure of Germany’
131
FO 371/55614, C6002, ‘Development of Government in the British Zone’, letter from Dean to Wilberforce, 1 July
1946
132
FO 1051/224, memorandum on ‘Germany: the Nature of Federal Government’ with an attached note stating this
had been prepared by the Deputy President, Governmental Sub-Commission. Undated, but probably written in June
1946, as Albu told his wife on 22 June 1946 (AP 12/3) that he was working on a paper on federalism.
130
152
decentralisation should be imposed as possible.’ However, he qualified this by adding that if
the central government did not have sufficient power to ensure stable social and economic
conditions, there would be ‘violent pressure’ towards centralisation which could not be
resisted. He envisaged a gradual development, delegating powers to the Länder immediately
but requiring all German decisions at central or at regional level to be subject to Allied veto:
In this way a radical change in the structure of the German state could be brought about
immediately and for an adequate time would remain under supervision until there was a
reasonable assurance that it was workable and had popular support.
133
Dean travelled to Berlin in August for a series of high level meetings with Robertson, Albu,
Flanders and William Strang, the political adviser to the Military Governor and the principal
Foreign Office contact within the Control Commission. Dean reported on his return to London
that their views were closer than he had expected.
134
With the approval of the Prime
Minister, the Foreign Office by-passed Hynd, who was on holiday in France, and invited
Robertson and Strang to a meeting with Bevin in Paris to discuss a new draft directive,
subsequently approved by the Prime Minister and Cabinet on 9 September 1946, instructing
the Military Governor to accelerate ‘the process of decentralisation territorially and devolution
of powers to the Germans in the British Zone.’
135
Before going to Berlin in August, Dean had prepared an extensive brief, outlining the
reasons for a policy of decentralisation.
136
During the visit, marginal notes were added to the
brief by Strang, including a comment that the Germans would not be attracted by a
‘Staatenbund’, a loose federation of independent states, but would accept a ‘Bundestaat’, a
federal state. In a letter to his wife on 14 August, two days before Dean’s visit, Albu used
similar language to describe the current, de-centralised, political structure in the US Zone, as
either a body of three dictators, one in each of the Länder in the zone, or ‘a Staatenbund –
that most inefficient of governments’ and widely disliked within the Control Commission.
137
These terms had not been used previously in Foreign Office documents. This tends to
133
Ibid
FO 371/55591, C10670, ‘Note on a short visit to Berlin by Mr Dean between the evening of Friday, August 16 th
and the morning of Monday 19th’
135
CAB 129/12/40, 9 Sept. 1946; FO 800/466; FO 371/55591
136
FO 371/55591, C10014, ‘Future political structure of Germany’. The reasons Dean gave for a policy of decentralisation were that they wished to collaborate with their western Allies to counter Soviet advocacy of a highly
centralised Germany, build up western Germany economically and politically, devolve responsibility to Germans and
reduce the cost of the occupation.
137
AP 12/3, letter from Albu to his wife, 14 Aug. 1946
134
153
confirm Albu’s claim that the formulation of policy as a compromise between the two options
of a Staatenbund and Bundestaat originated within the Control Commission in Germany, and
was subsequently adopted by the Foreign Office and by Bevin in his speech on 22 October.
Whereas the Foreign Office were advocating the maximum degree of decentralisation, the
Control Commission, advised by Albu, fought a determined and largely successful rearguard
action, not so much, as claimed by Reusch, to preserve their ability to impose a British
138
model of government,
but to maintain sufficient powers within central government to
enable centralised social and economic planning. The Control Commission’s response to the
Foreign Office September 1946 directive, for example, stated that an adequate standard of
living ‘would be unattainable without a considerable degree of central economic planning’,
the SPD, ‘left-wing parties’ and Trade Unions were opposed to an ‘excessive degree of
decentralisation’ and their own proposals were a reasonable compromise between maximum
de-centralisation and ‘the necessity for ensuring economic control at the centre.’
139
Rather
than the Labour Government taking the lead in implementing a socialist policy in Germany, it
appears that Albu and his colleagues in the Control Commission were resisting Foreign
Office pressure for ‘maximum’ de-centralisation, so that a future SPD central government in
Germany could operate a planned economy on socialist principles.
Ordinance 57, which gave practical effect to the policy of devolution, came into effect from 1
December 1946.
140
It was not well received by German politicians who objected to it on the
basis that too much authority was reserved to the Military Government. Albu responded to
these criticisms in a talk to the German press in February 1947, in which he referred again to
the need to preserve adequate central government powers:
The powers which have been reserved to the centre are those powers which are necessary
to ensure the economic revival of Germany and to enable a reasonable degree of economic
planning and of the distribution of very scarce raw materials … I must again emphasise that
until there is a Central Government for Germany there is no other way than the exercising
of these powers by Military Government.
141
138
Reusch, Deutsches Berufsbeamtentum, pp363-4
FO 371/55593, C12323, ‘Policy in Germany’, letter from Sholto Douglas to The Permanent Secretary, COGA, 5
Oct. 1946
140
Beate Ruhm von Oppen (ed) Documents on Germany under Occupation 1945-1954 (London, New York,
Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1955), pp192-195; This New Germany’, British Zone Review, Vol.1 No.33, 21
Dec. 1946, p1
141
AP12, ‘Draft of a talk to German Press to be given by Mr. A.H. Albu’, 8 Feb. 1947
139
154
Albu placed a greater emphasis than the Foreign Office on those powers which, to quote the
British Zone Review, Military Government had ‘reserved to itself in trust for a Government of
Germany to be established at an unforeseeable date.’
142
However, it became clear over the
following year that the reserved powers were unlikely to be exercised by a future German
government in the way he had hoped, due to increased US influence over economic issues
in the combined British and US ‘Bizone’, established on 1 January 1947. Furthermore, in a
divided Germany of three western zones, the SPD was unlikely to obtain a sufficient majority
to implement socialist policies. Albu grew increasingly pessimistic as to the prospects for a
socialist Germany and his ability to make a positive contribution to the British occupation.
By the time he left Germany in November 1947, Albu believed there was little more he and
his colleagues could achieve. He was no longer especially concerned about security, writing
that ‘this time we really have destroyed the German army, both its personnel and its physical
assets.’
143
Nor was he unduly concerned, as he had been at the time of the Fusion
campaign, that a united Germany might be dominated by the communists, now ascribing this
view to the Foreign Office.
144
In a British Forces Network broadcast in March 1947, he said
that, now the Land governments had taken office, ‘the giving of orders no longer rests with
Military Government officers.’ German administrations needed to be monitored and
controlled, and the British had to act as ‘guides, philosophers and friends’ of the German
politicians.
145
Flanders used the same words to describe the ‘most important sphere of his
work’ in his notes to his comrades on leaving Germany.
146
In September 1947 Albu recommended that the size of the British Control Commission
should be reduced to 2,178, roughly a tenth of its current size.
magnitude were not achieved until after 1950,
148
147
Reductions of this
but the overall direction was clear. Apart
from exercising the power of veto, there was little the British could do, as an occupying
power, to promote either democratic renewal or a positive socialist policy. Those who
remained would have to depend on their personal relationships with their German colleagues
142
‘This New Germany’, British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.33, 21 Dec. 1946, p1
AP 11/1, letter to C. O’Neill, 30 Jan. 1947
144
Ibid
145
AP 11/1, Control Commission BFN broadcast, 13 March 1947, ‘Reform of Government in the British Zone.’
146
FP MSS.65/199, ‘Personal Notes’ by Allan Flanders, Oct. 1947
147
AP 28/3, Memorandum, 11 Sept. 1947.
148
AP 12/2, letter from Albu to Mayhew 1 Nov. 1949 and reply 12 Dec 1949. Christopher Mayhew, Foreign Office
minister for Germany, told Albu that numbers were around 7,000, but would be reduced further to 3,000-3,500 by
December 1950.
143
155
and friends to promote what they considered positive reforms. Albu and Flanders decided
they had done what they could in Germany and it was time to return to Britain.
Disengagement from Germany and return to Britain
Albu’s achievements in the area of governmental reorganisation did not change his
pessimistic outlook on the economic and political situation, which dated back to his
perception acquired during the Fusion campaign soon after his arrival in Germany, that
Russian tactics were similar to those of the Nazis and economic conditions would favour the
communists rather than democratic socialists. He wrote in his diary on March 25 1946, after
posters supporting Einheit (a united party) appeared in Berlin:
Fresh Einheit [Unity] posters every day, all over the town. Demagogic & nationalistic
149
“Einheit, Ein Reich ….”
The posters actually said ‘Ein Ziel, Ein Weg, Einheit’ (one aim, one path, unity) which was
uncomfortably close to the Nazi slogan ‘Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer’.
150
Albu set out his
conclusions in a memorandum written during the campaign. There was a ‘growing
realization’, he wrote, that Fusion would be ‘but another step in the squeezing out of the
other Allies from Berlin.’ He believed that the SPD was the only party which could gain the
support of the working class, resist Communist pressure and remain democratic. It would,
however, ‘lose all influence in the eyes of the Germans if it appears as a puppet of the
Western powers.’ Hence any scope for direct action by the Allies to promote political reform
was limited. Rather than looking to the British to implement a policy of social change, he
recommended that the best way to counter communist influence was for German advisory
boards to be invited to submit plans for socialisation, land reform, social legislation and ‘reactivating German industry’.
151
Three months later, after a visit to the Ruhr that left him deeply depressed by the economic
conditions he encountered there, he wrote to his wife:
I don’t know if I can stick it. This is the worst area, of course. The people are on the verge of
starvation, their industries are running out of raw material, pits & factories are closing down,
149
AP 13/2, diary entry for 25 March 1946
AP 11/6 report by Annan on ‘The campaign for Fusion of the Social Democratic and Communist Parties in
eastern Germany’
151
AP 28/3, memorandum, 14 March 1946
150
156
there’s no material for re-building…. It seems a nonsense to be talking politics under the
circs …. Already people are getting hysterical…. Why the hell did I come here?
152
Back in Berlin, he wrote a memo to Robertson, stating that their political activities were
meaningless in the current economic situation. ‘The only voice that will be listened to is that
of a hysterical nationalist demagogy’, now provided by the Communist Party, which was
attracting former officers and Nazis into its ranks, just as the Nazi party in the 1920s had
recruited former soldiers from the Freikorps. Echoing Montgomery’s memo of 1 May, he
wrote that the new nationalists would ‘see the opportunity to rebuild Germany from the East’:
We are, in fact, in danger of creating a condition of chaos in our Zone in which the work of
the Control Commission, as such, will become futile. All that will be possible will be military
occupation to prevent the chaos spreading beyond the boundaries of Germany and,
presumably, to prevent the Russians taking over our Zone, either directly, or through the
153
Communist Party.
In March 1947, after a year in post, he wrote to Hynd that ‘on some quite crucial matters the
Foreign Office have departed from the principles which I think both you and I felt were
essential here.’ He was concerned that economic conditions, aggravated by the influx of
millions of refugees, would ‘create a demographic and economic position in Germany which
was just impossible.’ He was also ‘intensely pessimistic’ about the Bizonal agreement
recently concluded with the Americans and feared that the continued policy of reparations
would make it increasingly difficult to secure cooperation with local German administrations.
Finally, if the Russians continued their current policy of taking reparations from current
production, there would be no alternative to ‘bringing the iron curtain down.’
154
In April 1947 Hynd was replaced as Minister for Germany by Frank Pakenham, Lord
Longford, and responsibility for the British administration of Germany was transferred to the
Foreign Office from the Control Office for Germany and Austria (COGA), which until then had
functioned as separate ministry. Albu stayed until October to complete his work of
governmental reorganisation, before returning home to find another job and pursue his
ambition of entering Parliament.
152
AP 12/3, letter to his wife, 24 May 1946
AP 28/3, memorandum, 19 June 1946
154
AP 11/1, letter from Albu to Hynd, 26 March 1947
153
157
Allan Flanders left Germany shortly after Albu, equally disillusioned. An article in Socialist
Commentary, published in November 1946 while he was still in Germany,
155
endorsed British
government policy of promoting economic recovery and making Germany, or at least the
British Zone, self-supporting, but criticised the failure to implement a positive socialist policy.
A decision to take the coal and heavy industries into public ownership had not been
implemented. No progress had been made on land reform. Currency reform was ‘long
overdue’ and, in the meantime, the black market flourished, preventing sound economic
development. The government in London had failed to provide clear guidance or a coherent
plan for the economy. Many military government officers regarded any plan as ‘too
socialistic’ and spoke contemptuously of the Labour government in their officers’ messes.
Within Germany there was a shortage of suitably qualified socialists able to take over
administration from supposedly politically neutral, but deeply traditional and conservative,
German civil servants.
156
In a report to his friends in the Socialist Vanguard Group in October 1947, shortly before he
returned to England,
157
Flanders emphasised the personal benefits of his going to Germany,
but could point to few concrete achievements. The work had been an invaluable personal
experience and had given him an insight into the workings of the Foreign Office. His
department had been responsible for a few ‘restrictive measures’, banning those who made
overtly nationalist speeches from political activities. He claimed to have influenced British
policy on dismantling and socialisation (ie public ownership) of industry, but although his
views were adopted by the head of the Political Division, neither were ultimately successful –
he was not able to prevent dismantling and socialisation of industry was never implemented.
Perhaps surprisingly, given his earlier position at the TUC and his later role as an expert on
industrial relations in Britain, he made no mention of any engagement with German trade
unions. He was able to help his ‘own comrades’ in the ISK in a few minor ways, such as
approving the licensing of a new journal Geist und Tat (Spirit and Deed), edited by Willi
Eichler, the leader of the ISK who had now returned to Germany. In general, however, he
155
‘The British Zone’, Socialist Commentary, Nov. 1946. All articles were unsigned, but this piece was very
probably written by Flanders. He remained chairman of the editorial board throughout his time in Germany.
156
Ibid
157
FP MSS.65/199, ‘Personal Notes’ by Allan Flanders, Oct. 1947. Another copy is in AP 12/2
158
wrote that the main purpose of his work appeared to be negative, that of ‘stopping worse
things happening.’
158
The one ‘hopeful factor’ he could point to was the strength of the
German Social Democratic Party (SPD), his ability to assist in its development, and the
personal contacts he had been able to establish with Kurt Schumacher, the party leader, and
his colleagues.
159
The ISK had been dissolved at the end of 1945. Most of its members joined the SPD and
returned to Germany. Some played an influential role in the post-war history of the Federal
Republic, including former leader, Willi Eichler, who led the reform programme that
culminated at Bad Godesberg with the SPD discarding its former Marxist ideology and
adopting a democratic socialist model.
160
The Socialist Vanguard Group survived a few more
years, but by 1950 there seemed little purpose in continuing with the organisation in its
current form and the executive decided to dissolve it, to be replaced by a looser and less
formal organisation, the Socialist Union.
161
Neu Beginnen also ceased to operate as a separate group in 1945. Some of its former
members remained in Britain, some returned to Germany and joined the SPD,
162
and some
spent long periods working in both countries. The reason for the group’s existence had been
their opposition to fascism. Once Hitler was defeated, not by opposition from within
Germany, but by the Allies, there was little reason for Neu Beginnen to continue as a
separate organisation.
5.4 Conclusion
In the final paragraph of his unpublished memoirs, Albu wrote that:
At the end of a life of so many disappointments I must continue to believe in man as a
thinking as well as a feeling animal; in the possibility of rational enquiry and argument and
to keep the hope that progress in the quality of his life is still possible. The steps by which
158
Ibid
Ibid
160
Bailey, ‘The European Discourse in Germany’, p459; Black, ‘Social Democracy as a Way of Life’, p515
161
Black, ‘Social Democracy as a Way of Life’
162
Eiber, Die Sozialdemokratie in der Emigration, pp828-841, letter from Erwin Schoettle to Karl Frank, 25 Nov.
1945, advising him of the decision to dissolve the group
159
159
these hopes and beliefs are to be achieved will not, however, be taken by my generation;
but by my grandchildren and those who follow them to the end of time.’
163
These words encapsulated both his and Flanders’ transition from early idealism, through the
desperate struggle against fascism, to post-war pragmatic democratic socialism. Soon after
his return from Germany, Albu was selected as parliamentary candidate for Edmonton,
following the death of Evan Durbin. He recalled the election campaign ‘with something
approaching horror’, having to bear the brunt of the mid-term unpopularity of the Labour
Government.
164
He was elected with a greatly reduced majority, but recovered in subsequent
elections and continued to represent the constituency until he retired in 1974. Apart from a
brief period as a junior minister from 1965-6, he remained on the back benches. He had little
involvement in foreign affairs or matters concerning Germany, but was an early supporter of
Britain’s entry to the Common Market. Perhaps his earlier belief in a ‘federation of free,
democratic Socialist states of Europe’ played a part in this, though it was to be a capitalist,
not a socialist community of nations that helped to make another war in (Western) Europe
impossible.
Albu and Flanders were in a difficult position and had limited scope for positive action. As
outsiders in what was effectively a military government, they had neither the authority that
Montgomery and his generals possessed as military commanders, nor the control of the
bureaucratic apparatus of the Control Commission exercised by Robertson. Working for
policy-making divisions at headquarters, they had no opportunity to exercise direct authority
on the ground. Furthermore, their opportunities for indirect influence, through informal links
and discussions with like-minded colleagues, were limited. Flanders was able to offer a
degree of support to his German socialist colleagues through powers of licencing over
political parties, the media and appointments, though, as he admitted in his notes on leaving
Germany, this was more a negative achievement in preventing worse things happening than
the positive influence he desired. Albu’s genuine achievements in helping to create a federal
structure in the British Zone were overshadowed by his pessimism regarding economic
prospects, democratic development, and the lack of any fundamental social and political
change.
163
164
Ibid, pXV/21
Albu, Back Bench Technocrat, pp7-8
160
There were, of course, many reasons why the Federal Republic of Germany did not embark
on a socialist course when it was founded in 1949, and why its first government was led by
the CDU, under Adenauer, rather than the SPD, under Schumacher. These included the
continued strength and influence of traditional German elites in the bureaucracy and industry
and their ability to adjust to changed circumstances, US opposition to a planned economy
and the socialisation of industry, and the preferences of the electorate as demonstrated in
the first federal election in August 1949, which resulted in a narrow victory for the CDU over
the SPD. However, a further contributory factor was that, despite the victory of the Labour
Party in Britain in 1945 and the British government’s cautious support for German socialists,
the British Military Government was run by members of a conservative British professional
establishment, comprising military generals, diplomats and professional administrators, who
had no interest in promoting socialism, and did not share Albu’s and Flanders’ beliefs that
the working class was the only democratic force left in Germany in 1945, or that the only way
to prevent a resurgence of fascism was through actively promoting socialist policies.
On Albu’s resignation from the Control Commission, General Robertson sent him a letter of
appreciation of the work he had done, which reflected the nature of their relationship and the
difference in approach between them. Albu was disappointed because his concrete
achievements did not match up to his original hopes and expectations. Robertson replied
with his understanding of their task in Germany:
You say that you wonder what you have achieved. Each of us makes a contribution, no
man more than that, to the British effort in Germany. I believe very firmly that history will
justify the British effort. Your contribution has been to bring to bear on our problems the
influence of your liberal and well-trained mind. That is a very worth-while contribution, and
there is no need to go further to seek concrete achievement.
165
The contribution Austen Albu and Allan Flanders made to political renewal in Germany was
not to impose their own vision, but to recognise the limits of what could be achieved by the
British Military Government, to step back and allow the German authorities to take
responsibility for their own actions. Their personal histories reflect a transition from pre-war
idealistic international socialism, through the desperate struggle against fascism and the
Nazi state and the experience of the Holocaust, to post-war pragmatic and national, rather
165
AP 13/2, handwritten letter from Robertson to Albu, 20 Dec. 1947
161
than international, social democracies. Many of their colleagues in Neu Beginnen and the
ISK, in both Britain and Germany, followed similar trajectories, from radical, occasionally
revolutionary, socialism, to social democracy, opposition to communist totalitarianism, and
the reluctant acceptance of a market economy.
162
6
Henry Vaughan Berry: civilian regional commissioner for
Hamburg: May 1946 – May 1949
‘I suppose it’s absolute heresy to say so but my belief was that the British
government during the war, Churchill and Roosevelt themselves, had no policy beyond
unconditional surrender. What they were to do with the unconditional surrender
when they got it – I really don’t think they’d thought about it’
1
2
Vaughan Berry (left) with Max Brauer, Bürgermeister of Hamburg
In May 1946, in an attempt to ‘civilianise’ the British administration of Germany, four
Regional Commissioners were appointed to replace the military Corps Commanders. The
commissioners were nominated by John Hynd, the government minister for Germany and
approved by the Prime Minister, Clement Attlee and the Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin.
1
3
Quote by Berry from BBC Written Archives, transcript of the TV series ‘Zone of Occupation’, programme 1, ‘Year
Zero’, first broadcast 1 Nov. 1981, p16. The same quote was used by Charles Wheeler at the start of his Radio 4
programme, ‘Germany: Misery to Miracle’, first broadcast 8pm, 19 Sept. 2005
2
Photograph from private family archive
3
FO 371/55612, ‘Appointment of Regional Commissioners.’
163
Three of the commissioners were civilians and active Labour Party supporters, the fourth an
army general. Those appointed in addition to Berry were William Asbury, a former leader of
Sheffield City Council and Hugh de Crespigny, a former Air Vice-Marshal who had resigned
his position in 1944 to stand, unsuccessfully, for Parliament as a Labour Party candidate.
4
The fourth commissioner, General Gordon Macready, had been chief of staff in Washington
5
during the war. The appointment of Regional Commissioners was a key element of the
policy to decentralise government of the British Zone, devolve power to the Länder and
govern by indirect rather than direct control.
Henry Vaughan Berry was appointed regional commissioner for Hamburg where he worked
closely with the city’s social democratic (SPD) administration. Unlike Austen Albu and Allan
Flanders, he had no links with German socialist groups in exile in London. His main
qualifications for the position appear to have been his experience as a young man on the
staff of the Inter-Allied High Commission for the occupation of the Rhineland after the First
World War and his personal connections with leading members of the Labour Party including
6
Herbert Morrison and Hugh Dalton. Unusually for a Labour Party activist, Berry worked
between the wars in a senior position in the City of London, as assistant manager of the
7
Union Discount Company. Concerned at what he perceived to be a lack of understanding of
financial matters among the Labour leadership in the 1930s, he founded an influential
8
pressure group of Labour sympathisers in the City, the XYZ Club. Yet despite his financial
background, he was not involved in discussions regarding economic policy for the British
Zone, or the proposed currency reform implemented in June 1948.
Berry’s region of Hamburg could be considered the most favourable of all the Länder in the
zone for effective cooperation between British and Germans. The city had a long tradition of
self-government and well established trading connections with Britain and the United States.
4
Ibid. De Crespigny was recommended for the post by Hugh Dalton.
FO 371/55612, ‘Appointment of Regional Commissioners’. Montgomery and Robertson requested that one
commissioner should be a senior army officer, as they believed this would be ‘gratifying to the military element of
the Control Commission. Macready wrote later that it was thought desirable to have a general in his region, Lower
Saxony, ‘owing to the long common frontier with the Russian Zone and the likelihood of incidents requiring cooperation with the Army.’ Lt-General Sir Gordon Macready, In the Wake of the Great (London: William Clowes and
Sons Ltd, 1965), p206
6
FO 371/55612, ‘Appointment of Regional Commissioners.’
7
The Union Discount Company of London was the leading player in the London money market, offering short term
loans to international trading organisations on the security of bills of exchange guaranteed by London merchant
banks.
8
Bath Record Office (henceforward BRO), ‘The Life and Times of Sir Vaughan Berry’, set of 45 discs (henceforward
‘Berry Memoir’), discs 29-33; Somerset Heritage Centre, Berry Papers, (henceforward SHC), A/BCU4, Note by
Berry on ‘XYZ – The Early Days’
5
164
Economic revival after the war was adversely affected by Allied restrictions on foreign trade,
the destruction of the German merchant marine and dismantling of the shipbuilding industry,
but Hamburg still had great strategic importance as the largest city in the Zone and the main
9
port of entry for goods and supplies. Though badly destroyed in the firestorms of 1943,
conditions were not as bad as had been feared. Although half the living accommodation was
destroyed and 100,000 inhabitants lost their lives during the war, the city was not damaged
in the land-based campaigns in April and May 1945, surrendering without a shot being fired.
Telephone connections, electricity and water supplies continued uninterrupted.
10
Berry’s tenure as Regional Commissioner was considered at the time to have been highly
successful by both British and Germans. He received glowing tributes from the German
press when he left Hamburg,
11
and was awarded a knighthood on his return to Britain.
Recent historians have been more critical of British occupation policy, while acknowledging
that Anglo-German relations were generally better in Hamburg than elsewhere. This chapter
discusses Berry’s aims and intentions and some of the successes and failures of British
occupation policy in Hamburg. It concludes by considering whether his experience in
Hamburg, though not necessarily typical of the zone as a whole, was an example of a
successful ‘benevolent occupation’ under relatively favourable conditions.
6.1 A meritocratic socialist who served in the Rhineland occupation
‘The excellence of the political system depends not on its conformity to some ideal
standards, but whether it is able to secure the services of the ablest of its citizens,
and to produce stable and effective government.’
12
Henry Vaughan Berry was born in 1891 and was therefore closer in age to Harold Ingrams
and the generals considered in the first part of this thesis, than to his fellow socialists Austen
9
Hilary Ann Balshaw, The British Occupation in Germany, 1945-1949 with special reference to Hamburg (PhD Diss:
Oxford, 1972), p53
10
Michael Ahrens, Die Briten in Hamburg: Besatzerleben 1945-1958 (Munich and Hamburg: Dölling und Gallitz
Verlag, 2011), pp84-5
11
Ahrens, Die Briten in Hamburg, p255; SHC, A/BCU9
12
Berry memoir, disc 44, speech delivered at the opening of the Hamburg Bürgerschaft, 22 Nov. 1946
165
Albu and Allan Flanders.
13
He said later that he became a socialist after the First World War,
influenced by events in Germany,
14
though it seems likely that his political beliefs were
strongly influenced by his childhood and education. His father moved from the small
Wiltshire town of Melksham to London and then to Madras in India, where he set up a
stockbroking business, lived in a grand house and appeared very wealthy. Berry and his two
sisters were born in Madras. They returned to England with their mother for what they
believed would be a short holiday, but received a telegram telling them that their father had
died of pneumonia. His fortune disappeared and the family was left with a ‘few hundred
pounds’, generating an annual income of £40, not enough to live on. Berry was just four
years old at the time and spent the rest of his childhood in genteel poverty. His mother had
to leave home to work as a governess and he and his two sisters moved to Bath, where they
lived with two maiden aunts, who had depended on his father for their livelihood.
15
Berry’s early life was a struggle to obtain an education that matched his ability. With help
from his godfather, he left home aged seven, to attend a boarding school, the ‘Royal Asylum
of St Anne’s’, at Redhill in Surrey. He described it later as a ‘charity school’ for ‘those who
had come down in the world’,
16
quite different from the public and preparatory schools
attended by the middle and upper classes, adding that it was an ‘amoral and stupid system
… to educate the rich separately.’
17
Berry did well at the school, becoming head boy. He
obtained a scholarship to the City of London School to continue his education, but this did
not improve the family’s finances, as the scholarship covered only one third of the fees. He
won another scholarship to Cambridge University, but again, this did not fully cover his costs,
and he could only accept the place after being offered financial assistance from an education
trust established by a Scottish peer.
18
His later socialism was meritocratic, placing greater emphasis on equality of opportunity,
‘from each according to his abilities’, than the redistribution of wealth and alleviation of
poverty, ‘to each according to his needs.’ He was opposed to unearned wealth and privilege,
13
Montgomery was born in 1887, Douglas in 1893, Robertson in 1896, Bishop and Ingrams in 1897; Albu in 1903
and Flanders in 1910.
14
Berry memoir, disc 25
15
Ibid, discs 1-3
16
Ibid, disc 4. Pupils were sponsored by members of the school trust and were charged no fees for education, food
or accommodation, until they reached the age of 15, when they had to leave.
17
Ibid, disc 5
18
Ibid, discs 5-8
166
but remained elitist rather than egalitarian, believing that those with ability should have the
opportunity to progress to positions of responsibility in society. At the same time, he
possessed a great sense of duty to others, probably arising from the knowledge that his
mother, aunts and sisters had sacrificed their own welfare, so that he could obtain his
education. He believed in the value of education, the aim of which he considered was to
learn to think clearly and rationally. He wrote in later life that ‘if your thinking is muddled I do
not see how you can make a success of anything, except by chance.’
19
He studied French and German at university and spoke both languages fluently, having
spent six months in each country through a school scholarship in 1909. He greatly enjoyed
his stay in Germany, in a small town near Hanover, where he enjoyed going on walks with
the local boys through the forests, playing football, parading in front of the girls and drinking
beer at the local Kneipe.
20
He recalled writing to his mother that:
Germany is a marvellous country for electricity, houses, railways etc. but in politics they are
300 years behind!
21
He served in the First World War as an officer in Salonika, Ireland and France, where he was
wounded.
22
Towards the end of the war, a chance encounter in London with his former
university tutor led to a transfer to the Intelligence Corps and a posting with the army of
occupation in the Rhineland. His work as intelligence officer involved travelling from one
town to another, often in German civilian clothes and with a German passport, talking to the
local people and trying to assess their mood and attitudes.
23
The inflation of 1920 made a deep impression on him and, in later life, he would speak of
how ‘the hardships experienced by the middle classes were one of the chief recruiting
grounds for Hitler.’ His ‘favourite story’ was that of a retired elderly jeweller and his wife, with
whom he was billeted for several months. Before the inflation the jeweller had been wealthy,
with an income equivalent to £800 a year, able to support an extended family as the ‘rich
uncle’. Within three months he had lost all his money and had to work again. The family were
appalled by what had happened to him and the next generation joined the Nazi party. Berry
19
Private family archive, letter from Berry to his great-niece, 10 June 1971
Berry memoir, disc 7
21
Private family archive, letter from Berry to his great-niece, Dec. 1975
22
Berry memoir, discs 13-15
23
Berry memoir, discs 15-16
20
167
sympathised with the jeweller, perhaps relating his experience of having ‘come down in the
world’ to that of his own family.
24
In 1920 he joined the Inter-Allied Control Commission and was appointed District Officer for
a small town, Benrath, near Düsseldorf. He subsequently acquired additional responsibilities
for the larger and strategically important district of Solingen in the Ruhr.
25
He was well placed
to see at first hand the occupation of Düsseldorf by French troops in 1921 and the
subsequent occupation of the Ruhr in 1924. Together with many of his British colleagues, he
sympathised with the Germans rather than the French.
26
In notes for a speech he gave in
1962, he outlined his understanding of the period: the young Weimar Republic never had a
chance; the steps taken by the Allies were all too little too late; in the late 1920s, Germany
was hit by the world economic crisis; it was the 6 million unemployed that gave Hitler his real
opportunity and within 3 years he was in power. There were clear parallels, his notes
continued, between his experiences after World War One and when he returned to Germany
in 1946. On both occasions he had seen hunger, a ration of only 1000 calories, and inflation
in which people lost nine tenths of their savings. The scale of destruction and disruption to
society was even worse after the Second World War than the first, with at least 6 million
people dead and missing and 2-3 million refugees entering the British Zone from the east.
Above all there was no Government or authority with which to deal. The conclusion he drew
was that to avoid continuing chaos, ‘the Allies had to take steps to rehabilitate Germany’.
27
Similar critical views of Allied policy after the First World War were common in the 1920s
among British people in the occupied Rhineland, such as the distinguished journalist Eric
Gedye,
28
whom Berry first met in Germany in 1919 when both were young officers in the
24
Berry memoir, disc 16; Private family archive, letter from Berry to his great-niece, 20 Dec. 1973
Berry memoir, discs 17-19
26
David G. Williamson, The British in Germany 1918-1930: the Reluctant Occupiers (New York, Oxford: Berg,
1991), p347. See also ‘Apex’, The Uneasy Triangle: Four Years of the Occupation (London: John Murray, 1931),
G.E.R. Gedye, The Revolver Republic: France’s Bid for the Rhine (London: J.W. Arrowsmith Limited, 1930), B.T.
Reynolds, Prelude to Hitler (London: Jonathan Cape, 1933), Ferdinand Tuohy, Occupied: 1918-1930: a Postscript
to the Western Front (London: Thornton Butterworth, 1931), Katharine Tynan, Life in the Occupied Area (London:
Hutchinson, 1925), Violet Markham, A Woman’s Watch on the Rhine (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1921)
27
SHC, A/BCU7, Notes for speech on ‘The Problem of Germany’
28
According to his entry in the Dictionary of National Biography, Gedye was ‘the greatest British foreign
correspondent of the inter-war years.’ Hugh Greene, ‘Gedye, (George) Eric Rowe (1890–1970)’, rev. Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/33362 accessed 29 April 2012].
Gedye’s articles as special correspondent for The Times were widely read in Britain and were credited by the
Manchester Guardian for foiling French plans to promote a separatist Rhineland Republic. See Gedye, The
Revolver Republic, p252
25
168
army of occupation.
29
Gedye wrote that by imposing harsh conditions in the Treaty of
Versailles, attempting to annex territory and supporting Rhineland separatists, the Allies
reinforced reactionary forces within Germany, rather than improving security and deterring
renewed aggression. Furthermore, by misusing their superior military power during the
occupation, rather than acting in strict accordance with the law, they fatally weakened the
Social Democratic government, set the example of rule by force and paved the way for a
nationalist revival:
Month after month we watched the spontaneous efforts of the German people … to secure
and consolidate the ground which had been won for democracy being foiled by Allied
severity and distrust.
30
The ‘pro-German’ views of Berry and his friend Gedye, that the rise of nationalism and the
Nazi seizure of power had, at least in part, been caused by a failure by the Allies to support
progressive forces within Germany in the 1920s, were quite distinct from the views of those
who supported appeasement in the 1930s. Gedye left Germany in 1925 to take up a position
in Vienna, where he remained until 1938. His second book, Fallen Bastions,
31
was a searing
indictment of Nazi brutality and condemned the British government’s failure to stand up to
Hitler and resist the invasions of Austria and Czechoslovakia.
When Berry returned to Germany a second time in 1946, the conclusions he drew from his
experiences in the occupied Rhineland were similar to those of General Robertson and other
senior army officers described earlier,
32
that while disarmament was necessary, a harsh
occupation based on a desire for revenge was not only wrong but counter-productive.
However much the British may, as Berry wrote later, have ‘hated and detested Germany and
the Germans as a result of the war’
33
the only alternative, in their own interest, was a
constructive policy of economic reconstruction, active support for democratic German
politicians and personal reconciliation.
29
They remained friends and Berry later referred to Gedye’s The Revolver Republic as ‘the best account of the
period.’ Berry memoir, discs 20, 22. See also Gedye, The Revolver Republic, p238; SHC, A/BCU3.
30
Gedye, The Revolver Republic, pp37-38
31
G.E.R. Gedye, Fallen Bastions: The Central European Tragedy (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1939)
32
See above pp63-66
33
BRO, Berry Papers, letter to the historian Ulrich Reusch, undated but probably March 1978
169
6.2 Active cooperation, shared ideals and aims
‘In Hamburg, why was I supposed to be successful – because the socialist govt. of the
province knew that basically I shared their ideals and therefore they would put [up] with
orders from me which they would not without trouble from another.
34
It was just a matter of ideals.’
Berry claimed later that he was offered and accepted the position as Regional Commissioner
in Germany due to chance. He had hoped to be appointed a director of the Bank of England.
These hopes were not realised, so he negotiated early retirement from the Union Discount
Company and made arrangements to retire to the country. According to Berry, Morgan
Philips, the general secretary of the Labour Party, told him, when they met by chance at the
House of Commons after an XYZ Club meeting, that ‘the government needed people who
shared its political convictions.’ Philips asked him if he would like to be ‘the governor of a
small colony’, to which Berry replied ‘no’. Philips then suggested: ‘Would you like to be a
Commissioner in Germany?
’35
In due course Berry was offered the post. Although he was interested, his wife was reluctant
to move. The older of their two sons, Michael, had died in July 1944 from an unknown illness
in Egypt. Berry was about to decline the offer when another personal tragedy changed their
future outlook and expectations. Their second son, Peter, who was training to be a doctor,
was killed in a motorcycle accident. Berry described how:
His death after that of Michael two years before … was a shock in the real sense of the
word. But when it came to deciding our own next moves, it seemed clear, or at any rate
very likely, that a totally different sphere and a totally different world would be best for both
36
of us.
Their ‘dream of having two fine sons each in a fine profession,’ which he ‘had sometimes
said was too good to be true,’ was shattered.
37
Rather than retreating into private life, his
personal experience of loss appears to have heightened his sense of duty and obligation to
others, and he accepted the position in Germany.
34
Private family archive, letter from Berry to his great-niece, Xmas 1976
Berry memoir, discs 40-41
Ibid, disc 41
37
Ibid
35
36
170
Berry claimed later that he received no serious briefing on his role as Regional
Commissioner and ‘no hint …of the kind of policy we were to adopt in our different regions.’
38
He appeared unaware of the planning that had been done for the occupation and the
numerous directives issued to Control Commission staff. After a brief spell as Regional
Commissioner for Westphalia, before the merger with North Rhine Province to form the new
Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, he moved to Hamburg. Elections were held soon after he
arrived, resulting in victory for the SPD. The previous Bürgermeister, a conservative who had
been appointed by the British, was replaced by a socialist, Max Brauer, who had returned
from exile in the United States and was untainted by any connection with the Nazis.
39
Without being specific as to how this affected their relationship, Berry claimed that their
sharing a socialist ‘fundamental philosophy … proved to be of enormous help to me during
the ensuing three years.’
40
Berry was concerned that both he and his staff should establish a good working relationship
with the German administration in Hamburg. He took great care over a speech he gave on
41
22 November 1946 at the ceremonial opening of the Bürgerschaft or city parliament.
The
content of the speech was unremarkable, emphasising that free elections had been held in
the city for the first time in 15 years, that he was a civilian and not a military governor and
that during the election he had permitted the greatest possible freedom of speech, including
criticism of the British military government. More important was the tone, which he intended
to be as conciliatory as possible, and the fact that he delivered the speech in German. He
said later that, had he spoken in English, ‘they probably would have paid little attention,
taking it as a mere formality’.
Germans are very conceited about their knowledge of foreign languages and would sit up
and take notice if they found their new civil governor speaking to them in what I flatter
myself was fluent German.
42
At the end of the speech he referred to his officials being ‘ready at all times to discuss your
problems in a spirit of co-operation.’ The ceremony was followed by a dinner, at his own
expense, to which he invited the new ‘senators’, as the ministers in the city government were
38
Ibid
Ahrens, Die Briten in Hamburg p366; British Zone Review, Vol.1 No.43, May 10 1947, p6
40
Berry memoir, disc 43
41
Ibid, discs 43-44
42
Ibid, disc 43
39
171
called, and some of his own staff. This, he believed, was ‘well worth any expense, because it
meant that the new administration started off at least on a friendly basis with my senior
officials.’
43
Berry quickly established excellent relations with the new mayor, Max Brauer,
44
whose aims
he appears to have made his own. In his first monthly report as Commissioner for the city in
January 1947, Berry outlined four aims for the year: to deliver the full ration of 1,550 calories,
create a reserve of fuel, remove uncertainty over reparations and complete the process of
denazification.
45
These were all issues of immediate concern to the local population. At the
end of the year, in another speech to the Bürgerschaft, again in German, Berry reviewed
progress against his four aims, again striking a conciliatory tone.
46
All except the first, he
said, had been achieved, though significant problems remained. They had all expected too
much, too soon from the peace, in Britain as well as in Germany. For two and a half years,
English and German officials had worked side by side, learning to understand, trust and
respect each other. He concluded by referring to the great fire of Hamburg in 1842 when
much of the city had been destroyed, saying he trusted that the same spirit which guided its
reconstruction then was still alive in the city.
47
Throughout his tenure as commissioner, Berry represented the interests of the city to the
British authorities and advocated special measures, such as subsidised inland transport
rates, which would benefit the port.
48
In his first monthly report, in January 1947, he wrote
that ‘I feel it is still necessary to stress the fact that a big metropolis always presents special
difficulties.’
49
Later in the year, the city was declared an emergency area (Notstandsgebiet)
after the food ration was cut by a third to an average of 1,000 calories a day and 200,000
people attended a hunger demonstration.
50
Berry wrote in his monthly report:
43
Ibid, disc 44
Ahrens, Die Briten in Hamburg, p366
45
SHC, A/BCU8, Monthly Report for Jan. 1947
46
SHC, A/BCU7, speech dated 29 Dec. 1947
47
Ibid
48
Ahrens, Die Briten in Hamburg, p369
49
SHC, A/BCU8, Monthly Report for Jan. 1947
50
Michael Wildt, Der Traum vom Sattwerden; Hunger und Protest, Schwarzmarkt und Selbsthilfe in Hamburg 19451948 (Hamburg: VSA Verlag, 1986), p56; Arnold Sywottek, ‘Verständigung mit den “Engländern” nach dem Zweiten
Weltkrieg. Zu einem noch ungeschriebenen Kapitel der “Vielvölkerstadt” Hamburg’ in Frank Otto and Thilo Schulz
(eds.), Großbritannien und Deutschland: gesellschaftliche, kulturelle und politische Beziehungen im 19. und 20.
Jahrhundert (Rheinfelden: Schäuble Verlag, 1999), p150
44
172
It is high time that the Bi-Zonal food authorities paid some attention to Hamburg’s plea for
special consideration.
51
The food situation improved, but he continued to advocate special treatment for the city in
other areas. When a list of factories to be dismantled was published in late 1947, he reported
that the reaction from the city’s population was generally reasonable, but there was ‘of
course one reservation for Hamburg.’ The future permitted level of the shipbuilding industry
had not yet been decided and it would be ‘a great mistake to settle what for this great Port is
a vital matter without consultation with the people of Hamburg.’
52
Berry’s principal concerns, however, as expressed in his monthly reports to the Military
Governor and senior British headquarters staff, were to keep order, avoid discontent and
represent British interests. The welfare of the inhabitants and good relations with the city’s
German administration were the means by which he achieved these ends. If Berry assisted
Brauer by advocating special treatment for the city, Brauer helped Berry maintain order,
defuse conflicts and restrain public opposition to the occupation.
53
6.3 The ‘Hamburg Project’: from defusing conflict to promoting a common
interest
The burgomaster [Brauer] stated that if we stopped at the right point we could
defend our reasons … The British and German authorities were “in the same boat”,
and both sides would be blamed in Hamburg for spending money unnecessarily.
54
Berry arrived in Hamburg in September 1946 at a difficult time. Relations with the local
German population had started to deteriorate, following widespread protests against the
continued requisitioning of houses for occupation personnel.
55
The winter of 1946-7 was the
worst in living memory. The River Elbe froze and ships carrying essential supplies could only
reach the port through a channel cut by icebreakers. Unable to dock at the wharves, they
51
SHC, A/BCU8, Monthly Report for June 1947
Ibid, Monthly Report for Oct. 1947
Frances Rosenfeld, The Anglo-German Encounter in Occupied Hamburg, 1945-50 (PhD Diss: Columbia
University, 2006), p151
54
FO 1014/890, ‘Minutes of a meeting of the Regional Commissioner’s conference with the Burgomaster and
members of the Building Administration’, 1 April 1947
55
Ahrens, Die Briten in Hamburg, p142; Rosenfeld, The Anglo-German Encounter, pp136-7; Berry memoir, disc 45
52
53
173
56
had to unload into lighters in mid-stream.
In January and February, 85 people froze to
death, and a further 200 died each month from inflammation of the lungs.
57
Due to a
shortage of coal, the supply of electricity was reduced to maintain essential services.
58
The
suburban railways ceased to run, trams stopped at 8pm and theatres and cinemas remained
closed.
59
Building was at a standstill.
60
Because no coal was available for domestic heating,
there was massive thieving of coal from freight trains arriving in the marshalling yards, with
crowds of up to 30,000 taking part.
61
Berry reported that 6,000 people were arrested for
stealing coal in January, 17,000 in February and 11,000 in March.
62
Unsurprisingly, he
expressed concern over the authorities’ ability to keep order. Unable to resolve shortages of
food and fuel, he decided on a token gesture of increasing unemployment relief to a level
sufficient to purchase ‘rationed necessities’. ‘Without the prospect of this particular
concession,’ he wrote, ‘which at least gave evidence of a sympathetic attitude with the plight
of the people, public order would not have been maintained.’
63
‘The price was cheap’ he
added in his report. He retained the support of the Bürgermeister and ‘responsible trade
union leaders’, and there were relatively few disturbances in the city over the winter.
64
In
April, the Bürgermeister authorised the German police to use firearms, and arrests for
stealing coal ceased with the warmer weather.
65
Berry had good reason to be concerned about possible unrest. The city was badly
overcrowded, with little prospect of any improvement in the immediate future, due to British
plans to concentrate zonal headquarters in Hamburg, rather than in the small towns in
Westphalia where the army was stationed at the end of the war. This scheme, known as the
‘Hamburg Project’ had been agreed in 1945. In the second half of 1946, it became the focus
of opposition to the occupation in Hamburg. The original plan envisaged an imperial-style
‘enclave’ in the city, requiring the evacuation of up to 50,000 German civilians to make room
56
Berry memoir, disc 45; SHC, ABCU8, Monthly Report for Feb. 1947
Michael Wildt, Der Traum vom Sattwerden; Hunger und Protest, Schwarzmarkt und Selbsthilfe in Hamburg 19451948 (Hamburg: VSA Verlag, 1986), p47
58
Axel Schildt, ‘Das “Hamburg project”. Eine kritische Phase der britischen Besatzungspolitik in Hamburg 1945-47’
in Otto and Schulz (eds,), Großbritannien und Deutschland, pp131-2
59
SHC, A/BCU8, Monthly Report for Feb. 1947
60
Ibid
61
Wildt, Der Traum vom Sattwerden, p121
62
SHC, A/BCU8, Monthly Reports for Feb. and March 1947
63
Ibid, Monthly Report for Jan. 1947
64
Wildt, Der Traum vom Sattwerden, p51
65
SHC, A/BCU8, Monthly report for April 1947
57
174
for around 30,000 British personnel.
66
In June 1946 a revised, slightly smaller, plan was
announced and work started, resulting in the eviction of 650 German civilians.
67
A peaceful
protest by 500 German women, handing in a petition at the Town Hall, grew rapidly over the
course of the day to around 10,000 people. The mood of the demonstrators deteriorated and
they became increasingly antagonistic to the British, shouting ‘we are not Indians or coolies’
and singing the German national anthem.
68
Brauer’s predecessor as Bürgermeister, Rudolf
Petersen, tried to speak to the crowd from a balcony but was shouted down.
69
Ten
demonstrators were arrested and a few days later sentenced, in a special session of the
British military court, to a total of 27 years imprisonment.
70
Berry claimed later that he threatened to resign if the plan was not abandoned. He recalled
in his memoir that he considered it ‘politically disastrous’ as:
It seemed to be treating a very ancient city in Europe in much the same way as a town in
India or China with its cantonments and its international settlements and to preclude any
possibility of furthering reasonably good relations between the occupation and the
71
Germans.
He added that he made his views known to the Military Governor, Sholto Douglas and his
deputy, Brian Robertson; the matter was discussed at the Regional Commissioners’
conference in Hamburg and it was decided to abandon the project.
72
Although Berry’s memoir is generally reliable and consistent with documents in the archives,
I have been unable to confirm his claim that he offered to resign. The minutes of a Regional
Commissioners’ conference held in Hamburg in December 1946 made no reference to the
Project,
73
although it appears, from references in other documents,
74
that a decision to
suspend it was taken at an earlier, unrecorded, high-level meeting. Berry flew to London to
advise the government of the decision. He wrote to Robertson from London on 28 December
1946, to say he had notified Hynd of the decision. Hynd, Berry continued, was annoyed as
66
Schildt, ‘Das “Hamburg project”’, pp137-139
Ibid, pp140-143; FO 1014/890, ‘Notes for the Commander’ on progress to date, by L.G Holmes, 27 June 1946
68
Schildt, ‘Das “Hamburg project”’, pp143-145; FO 1014/48
69
Ibid
70
Ibid
71
Berry memoir, disc 43
72
Ibid
73
FO 1005/1354
74
Such as a brief reference to the decision to suspend the project in FO 1014/15, minutes of an informal conference
of Regional Commissioners with the Chancellor (Hynd), 15 Jan. 1947
67
175
he had prepared, but not submitted, a Cabinet paper recommending continuation.
75
Robertson replied that ‘Hynd’s reaction to our decision’ surprised him, but he hoped to
‘smooth him down’ on his next visit to Germany.
76
This indicates that Robertson endorsed
the decision to suspend the project and it was probably more consensual than Berry
suggested in his memoir.
Berry was not alone in his opposition to the project. It had been extensively criticised in
Parliament, notably by Richard Stokes MP who referred to it in a House of Commons debate
in October 1946 as the ‘Hamburg Poona’, alluding to similarities with imperial enclaves in
India, from which the native inhabitants were excluded.
77
Berry’s predecessor as Military
Governor in Hamburg, Brigadier Armytage, also opposed the project, writing a strongly
worded memo to Robertson in July 1946, drawing his attention to the ‘extremely serious
situation’ which had arisen due to evictions required for the Hamburg Project, evictions
elsewhere in the city to provide accommodation for British families and the general shortage
of building materials.
78
Armytage estimated that by September, 6,000 German families would
need to be evicted. Due to the shortage of alternative accommodation, they could only be
housed by ‘doubling up’ with other families in already overcrowded homes. He told
Robertson he had agreed with the Bürgermeister that alternative accommodation would be
found for 6,000 families, but no more. He would not ‘agree to any further evictions than those
already referred to unless I receive direct orders from you to do so.’
79
An equally strongly worded memo was written in September 1946 by the officer commanding
army intelligence for the city, Lt. Col. Philip Ramsbotham.
80
He stated that Hamburg was
‘undoubtedly an unfortunate choice’ as the designated headquarters of the zone, due to
‘chronic overcrowding’ in which ‘some 30,000 persons are living in appalling conditions in
81
cellars, bunkers and attics.’
There had been, he continued, a ‘marked change from
undoubted goodwill to open hostility’, the ‘feeling amongst the Hamburg population’ was
75
FO 1030/306
Ibid
77
Rosenfeld, The Anglo-German Encounter, p144
78
FO 1032/1272, memo from Armytage to Robertson, ‘Dangerous overcrowding at Hamburg’, 24 July 1946, cited
by Ahrens, Die Briten in Hamburg, p166.
79
Ibid
80
Philip Ramsbotham, (Lord Soulbury), educated at Eton and Magdalen College Cambridge, later a distinguished
British diplomat and ambassador to the United States, 1974-1977.
81
FO 1014/897, ‘Brief for Deputy Regional Commissioner’, 20 Sept. 1946, cited by Schildt, ‘Das “Hamburg project”’,
p146
76
176
already intense and increasing, and ‘the hostility of the Hamburg populace, half-starved and
entering a second winter of “peace”, may reach a dangerous level.’ A further reason for
cancelling the project, Ramsbotham argued, was that Hamburg was no longer the most
suitable location for British headquarters. The recent decision to merge the British and US
zones economically to form the ‘Bizone’, and the city’s closeness to the Russian Zone, made
it preferable to locate headquarters in a small town ‘not yet openly hostile to Military
Government,’ in the southern part of the British Zone.
82
Opposition to the scheme therefore reflected differences among the British in addition to
tensions between British and Germans. Robertson, the original proponent of the plan, was
concerned about the effectiveness of the central administration, whereas regional officials,
such as Berry, Armytage and Ramsbotham, wished to maintain a harmonious relationship
with the local German population. The main reason the project was abandoned, however,
was that by the end of 1946 it had become redundant. A large central British headquarters
was no longer required once the decisions had been taken, following the Paris Council of
Foreign Ministers’ meeting in the Spring of 1946, to merge the British with the US zone and
reduce the total number of Control Commission staff. However, the project had acquired a
momentum of its own, and criticism in Parliament and from the press in both Britain and
Germany made it difficult to cancel, without damaging the prestige of Military Government.
Once the decision had been taken to abandon the project, Berry and his colleagues worked
closely with the German administration to defuse the situation, save face and salvage
something from the debacle. British staff were told in January 1947 that the project had not
been abandoned, but temporarily suspended due to a shortage of building materials.
83
At a
Regional Commissioners’ conference attended by Robertson and Hynd, it was agreed that
work should continue to complete the foundations of blocks of flats under construction.
84
Rather than taking the opportunity to criticise the British, the SPD government in Hamburg
decided it was in their interest to help manage the presentation of the issue to the public.
82
Ibid. Ramsbotham’s recommendation foreshadowed the decision two years later, in 1949, to locate the capital of
the Federal Republic in Bonn, a small town at the southern edge of the British Zone.
83
FO 1014/904, minutes of a meeting to discuss and ‘examine the eventual implementation of the Hamburg
Project’, 3 Jan. 1947
84
FO 1014/15, informal conference of Regional Commissioners with the Chancellor, 15 Jan. 1947
177
Brauer agreed with Berry that the project should be continued, but ‘slowed down’, on the
grounds that:
A complete abandonment of the project after such great investments would justify any
reproach by the public that the planning had lacked the necessary foresight. The point that
much greater use could have been made of the material spend and the labour employed for
the building and the repair of other flats in Hamburg could then not be countered effectively.
On the other hand … after the present work has been completed to a certain extent, it
should be slowed down. Thus the reproach would be avoided that for the continuation of
the Project an incomparably great amount of material would be used in contrast to the civil
housing programme.
85
A few days later the issue was discussed at a joint meeting of British and German officials,
chaired by Berry. Brauer reiterated his view that the British and German authorities were ‘in
the same boat’ and if the project was abandoned, both would be blamed for spending money
unnecessarily. However he added that the flats should not be completed before 1950 or
possibly later.
86
The project continued slowly. Both sides understood that the buildings would never be used
to accommodate British personnel, although this was tacitly assumed, not stated explicitly. It
had always been intended that the British ‘enclave’ would be handed back to the Germans
after the occupation. On 10 March 1948 a meeting was held to discuss the ‘final hand-over
of the residue of the Hamburg project to the Germans’.
87
In February 1949 Robertson wrote
to Berry, after learning that the German administration in Hamburg was going to resume
work on the flats:
I am of course delighted to hear that the Hamburg project is to be restarted. I always held
that the work which we did would be of benefit to the City and I am glad to see myself being
88
justified.
This comment reflected a sincere, if optimistic, belief that the occupation would ultimately
benefit the Germans, despite the original plans for the Hamburg Project requiring the eviction
of 50,000 Germans from their homes, with no alternative accommodation, in an already
85
FO 1014/890, letter from the Bürgermeister to the Regional Commissioner, 28 March 1947
FO 1014/890, ‘Minutes of a meeting of the Regional Commissioner’s conference with the Burgomaster and
members of the Building Administration’, 1 April 1947
87
FO 1014/890
88
SHC, A/BCU8, Letter from Robertson to Berry, 18 Feb. 1949
86
178
overcrowded city. The Grindelhochhäuser,
89
as the blocks of flats originally designed to
house British occupying forces were called, were completed in 1956. They were renovated
between 1995 and 2006 and now stand under historic buildings protection.
6.4 Personal reconciliation through Anglo-German discussion groups
‘Dem Gegner von gestern, dem Freunde von Morgen
Das ist das Ziel, dem wir nachstreben sollten.’
90
(‘Yesterday’s enemies, tomorrow’s friends, that is the goal we should strive for.’)
In later life, Vaughan Berry liked to recall his discussions with German students from the
University of Hamburg:
It is a matter of some pride to me that the present Chancellor, Helmuth [sic] Schmidt, was in
my time one of about 15 students who used to come to our house regularly for informal
91
discussion.
Once power was devolved to local German administrations, the British authorities could no
longer issue detailed instructions or tell the Germans what to do. They believed that their
influence over the future development of the country was best maintained through personal
relationships with Germans in responsible positions in government, business, the media and
education.
92
Frances Rosenfeld has documented the many ways in which British occupation
officials in Hamburg created a ‘successful arena’ for ‘postwar reconciliation and cultural
exchange’ through promoting a network of interlocking Anglo-German clubs and
associations, supported by officially sponsored reading rooms and information centres,
known as Die Brücke (The Bridge).
93
Hamburg was not unique in this. Similar initiatives took
place throughout the British Zone.
89
‘Grindel high-rise houses’, after the name of the district in which they are situated.
SHC, A/BCU7, speech at a reception on leaving Hamburg, undated, cited in Ahrens, Die Briten in Hamburg, p414
91
Private family archive, letter from Berry to his great-niece, Dec. 1975. See also BRO, Berry papers, telegram from
Helmut Schmidt, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, to Lady Berry, 3 March 1979: ‘It is with deep
personal regret that I have learned about the death of Sir Henry I will always remember the interesting and inspiring
hours I spent in Sir Henry’s house in Hamburg Germany and I personally lost a friend.’
92
FO 936/693, ‘Relations between CCG Personnel and Germans’
93
Frances Rosenfeld, The Anglo-German Encounter in Occupied Hamburg, 1945-50 (Unpublished PhD Diss,
Columbia University, 2006)
90
179
The first Anglo-German discussion groups were formed on an entirely voluntary basis,
outside their normal working hours, by individual Control Commission staff.
94
The idea was
taken up, in slightly different ways, by Political Division and Education Branch. A proposal for
an ‘informal re-education scheme’, modelled on the ‘Education for Citizenship’ activities
developed by the British Army Bureau of Current Affairs, was approved in July 1946.
95
Meanwhile Education Branch promoted the idea of informal discussion groups, run
voluntarily by enthusiastic individuals.
96
A branch memo in November 1946 suggested that
Germans tended to view all official news sources with suspicion and would gain a better
understanding of the ‘British way and purpose’ through personal contacts.
endorsed at a Regional Commissioners’ conference in September 1946.
98
97
The idea was
An article in the
British Zone Review in January 1947 announced that the Commander-in-Chief had given
formal approval for groups to be promoted and encouraged throughout the Zone, so that:
through personal contact and free discussion, the Germans will gain a fuller appreciation of
the British way of thought, and conversely the British will reach a better understanding of
the German mental outlook.
99
Practical guidelines were offered on how to run the groups. A ‘sufficiently keen and capable’
British person should act as sponsor. Thirty should be the maximum number of participants;
if there were more, it was difficult to hold a genuine discussion. Until the group had existed
for some time, controversial subjects were best avoided, but topics should be of current
interest, such as housing, food, education reform, films and music.
100
By 1948 several
thousand groups had been formed in the Zone, including at least twenty-five established
Anglo-German groups and sixteen other regular discussion groups in Hamburg.
101
Other initiatives to promote mutual understanding and personal reconciliation were initiated
at the highest levels of the Control Commission. In July 1946, soon after their appointment,
Regional Commissioners were told that Robertson, the Deputy Military Governor, believed it
desirable they should develop social contacts with ‘German officials, political leaders, Trade
94
FO 1050/1312, ‘Anglo-German Discussion Groups’, cited in Rosenfeld, The Anglo-German Encounter, pp215-219
FO 1050/1290, ‘Education for Citizenship’, cited in Rosenfeld, The Anglo-German Encounter, p236
96
Robert Birley, ‘Education for Democracy’, British Zone Review, Vol.2, No.4, 27 Sept. 1947, cited in Rosenfeld,
The Anglo-German Encounter, pp220-230
97
FO 1050/1312, Memo by M.M. Simons, cited in Rosenfeld, The Anglo-German Encounter, p215. The ‘British Way
and Purpose’ was the title of a series of booklets produced during the war by the Directorate of Army Education.
98
FO 1005/1354, Minutes of the 3rd Regional Commissioners’ conference, 11 Sept. 1946
99
British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.34, 4 Jan. 1947, p16
100
Ibid
101
Rosenfeld, The Anglo-German Encounter, p245
95
180
Union leaders and so on’, as ‘many things can more suitably be discussed unofficially at a
cocktail party or a dinner party than officially in an office.’
102
In May 1947 most of the
restrictions on personal and social contacts between British and Germans were lifted in a
new ‘Special Order’, the preamble to which stated that ‘British policy aims at encouraging the
democratic way of life among the Germans’.
103
Control Commission staff were encouraged
to visit German families (but not to ‘spend the night with them’) and to entertain Germans
‘both officially and as private individuals.’
104
A year later the regulations were revised again,
at the instigation of the Minister for Germany, Frank Pakenham, to state that British
personnel should ‘behave towards the Germans as the people of one Christian and civilized
race towards another, whose interests in many ways converge with our own and for whom
we have no longer any ill-will.’
105
Over time, some informal discussion groups developed into social and cultural clubs and
societies and were complemented by other activities designed to promote mutual
understanding, such as exchange visits between Britain and Germany. As Regional
Commissioner, Berry provided official endorsement and gave his personal support to some
of the most high profile activities, such as the Hamburg International Club, for young men
and women aged between 18 and 30, and the elite Hamburg Anglo-German Club. At the
inaugural meeting of the International Club, Berry spoke of a need for mutual tolerance and
understanding. The club’s German members, he said, had ‘a difficult past to face.’ Although
many were only children at the time, they had to face the fact that:
The Nazi Government, which was enthusiastically supported by large masses of the
German people, committed unspeakable crimes against humanity, and you must not expect
that these things can be quickly or easily forgotten, especially by your Eastern
106
neighbours.
British members, on the other hand, should ‘not be too critical of those Germans who spent
107
their childhood under the Nazi regime.’
102
FO 1030/172, letter from General Philip Balfour to Regional Commissioners, 18 July 1946, cited in Ahrens, Die
Briten in Hamburg, p361
103
FO 936/693, ‘Special Routine Order’ No. 263, ‘Relations between C.C.G. Personnel and Germans’, 30 May 1947
104
Ibid
105
FO 936/693, draft order submitted to the 16th Regional Commissioners’ conference, 18 May 1948
106
SHC, A/BCU7, speech to the Hamburg International Club, cited in Rosenfeld, The Anglo-German Encounter,
p267 and Ahrens, Die Briten in Hamburg, p377
107
Ibid
181
Whereas the International Club was for young people, the Hamburg Anglo-German Club,
deliberately modelled on a traditional English gentlemen’s club, was designed to cater for the
city’s elite. Founder-members included Berry, Brauer and some of the city’s leading
politicians and businessmen.
108
After the currency reform in June 1948, Berry complained
that British officials could no longer afford the costs of returning hospitality offered to them by
‘affluent Germans’ in the club. This, he believed, was unfortunate as it was in clubs such as
these, ‘that we can reach the ruling 5 per cent of the population.’
109
The Hamburg Anglo-
German Club survived proposals to close in 1951 and still exists in 2013.
110
From 1947 the British made a deliberate effort, in Berry’s words, ‘to impress our ideas on the
small elite of the population who lead in administration, industry, education and arts,
journalism and so forth,’
111
but this did not extend to courting popularity among the German
population as a whole. As an unelected military government, imposed on a defeated nation
by force, there was no obvious need to do so. Berry wrote in February 1948 that the
‘occupation is not exactly popular and we make little effort to win the support of the German
people.’
112
A few months later, he warned that although the air-lift had resulted in a more
favourable attitude towards the Western Allies in Berlin, in the British Zone the occupation
was:
intensely disliked and we must not be misled by the excellent relations which exist between
the Administrations on both sides. It is not so much that we ourselves are becoming more
unpopular as that the Germans are finding their feet.
113
He asked his staff to investigate further. They reported that the British were disliked for their
alleged aim of exploiting Germany, ‘muddlesome inefficiency’, and because the Germans
held them responsible if anything went wrong. There was ‘admiration for individual British
integrity’ but ‘very little for our administrative ability’. ‘British psychology in official relations
with the Germans’ was considered poor and ‘The only virtue seen in the British occupation is
that it keeps the Russians out.’
114
108
Ahrens, Die Briten in Hamburg, pp420-422; Arnold Sywottek, ‘Verständigung mit den “Engländern”’, p154
SHC, A/BCU8, Monthly Report for Dec. 1948
Ahrens, Die Briten in Hamburg, p426
111
SHC, A/BCU8, Monthly Report for March 1947
112
Ibid, Monthly Report for Feb. 1948
113
Ibid, Monthly Report for Aug. 1948
114
Ibid, Monthly Report for Oct. 1948
109
110
182
Despite concerns over the unpopularity of the occupation, Berry’s later reports show
satisfaction with progress. In March 1948 he attached a declaration from the city government
welcoming the Marshall Plan. This showed, he commented, that ‘the right spirit rules in the
Senate of Hamburg.’
115
In June, as the availability of food improved for the first time since
the end of the war, he reported that, ‘For the first time in Occupation history food has not
been the most absorbing topic’.
116
The following month, as tensions over Berlin eased, and
fears lessened that the Western Allies would give way to Soviet pressure and evacuate the
city, he reported that, for the first time in the occupation, ‘the majority of Hamburgers are
openly
and
totalitarianism.’
vigourously
117
[sic]
championing
Western
democracy
against
Russian
The economic transformation following currency reform had been ‘quite
remarkable’ and the city’s finances were much improved.
118
In his last report as
Commissioner, for April 1949, he could state that, following the signing of the Atlantic Pact,
agreement on the Basic Law, and concessions on shipbuilding and dismantling, ‘a spirit of
optimism prevails at the moment among all responsible elements and general morale has
probably never been higher since the Occupation began.’
119
By the time Berry left Hamburg in May 1949, to take up a position as the British
representative on the International Authority of the Ruhr, his aim of establishing a good
working relationship with the city’s German administration had been achieved. In a study
completed in 1974, Hilary Balshaw conducted interviews with a number of Hamburg
senators, all of whom spoke of the ‘respect and admiration’ he inspired in them and praised
him in exceptional terms as, for example, ‘a most marvellous man’.
120
In January 1949,
Robertson provided further endorsement of the strength of his relationship with his German
colleagues by telling Berry that he had recently asked the heads of government of the four
Länder in the British Zone for their views on the current state of Anglo-German relations.
Brauer had replied that:
Relations between the Germans and the British and between the City Administration and
the British occupation authorities can properly be described as ideal. That is largely due to
your Regional Commissioner. There are of course difficulties from time to time but we
115
Ibid, Monthly Report for March 1948
Ibid, Monthly Report for June 1948
117
Ibid, Monthly Report for July 1948
118
Ibid
119
Ibid, Monthly Report for April 1949
120
‘ein grossartiger Mann’, Balshaw, The British occupation of Germany, p243
116
183
always manage to straighten them out. In my view the difficulties are not greater and
probably less, than they would be if we had a German garrison in the town.
121
Berry was able to look back on his achievements in Hamburg with satisfaction. In a speech
during a celebratory return visit in 1959, he attributed much of his reputed success, and that
of the City of Hamburg, which now ‘formed part of the German miracle’, to the ‘far-sighted
and humane policy of the Western Allies,’ adding that he retained his admiration for men
such as General Robertson and Robert Birley, who had directed British policy in the Zone.
122
6.5 Conclusion
Recent historians of the occupation in Hamburg
123
have not agreed with the self-
congratulatory view, expressed by Berry and many of his former colleagues in the 1950s and
1960s, that far-sighted and humane British policies contributed to the political and economic
success of a democratic West Germany. Their criticisms of British occupation policy,
however, should be placed in the context of what Berry and his colleagues aimed to achieve.
Berry’s primary concern was the future welfare of the British people, not the social, political
or economic organisation of Germany. His principal aim, shared by all the British individuals
examined in this study, was simple and uncontroversial: to create a peaceful and democratic
Germany that would never again threaten the national interests of Great Britain. He believed
that this aim could best be achieved by representing the interests of the city, defusing
conflicts, establishing a good working relationship with the German SPD administration and
promoting mutual reconciliation as a means of preserving British influence among the
German governing elite.
Axel Schildt has argued that it is an oversimplification to see the occupation from 1945-49 as
harmonious throughout. Growing trust was paralleled with tense conflicts, of which the
Hamburg Project was one.
124
Similarly, Arnold Sywottek has highlighted German opposition
to British Military Government, as well as initiatives by both sides to promote mutual
121
SHC, A/BCU8, letter from Robertson to Berry, 18 Feb. 1949
SHC, A/BCU11
123
Schildt, ‘Das “Hamburg project”’, Sywottek, ‘Verständigung mit den “Engländern”’, Ahrens, Die Briten in
Hamburg, Rosenfeld, The Anglo-German Encounter
124
Schildt, ‘Das “Hamburg project”’, p131
122
184
understanding.
125
These comments are valid in correcting an overly rose-tinted view of
growing trust and uninterrupted harmony but, in Hamburg, unrest was successfully defused
and had little impact on the ability of the British to achieve their primary aims.
In the conclusions to his thorough and wide-ranging study of Die Briten in Hamburg, Michael
Ahrens argued that the occupation was over-complicated and badly planned. The cost was
too high, the British and Germans lived in ‘parallel worlds’, there was a ‘deep division’
between the civilian and military arms of the occupation, and no single point of contact for
German authorities to deal with.
126
These criticisms are valid from a German perspective.
They describe various ways in which the occupation made life more difficult for Germans in
Hamburg, and they question the extent to which the British goal of mutual reconciliation was
achieved. The Germans paid the occupation costs, resented the privileges assumed by the
occupiers, such as travel in reserved compartments on over-crowded trains, and were
annoyed by sometimes having to deal separately with British civilian and military authorities.
None of these issues, however, significantly hindered British achievement of their primary
aim of creating a peaceful and democratic Germany.
Frances Rosenfeld considered that the encounter between British and Germans in Hamburg
was a ‘unique experiment in postwar reconciliation and intercultural understanding’ of which
both sides were proud at the time, but which was achieved at the cost of ignoring difficult
situations and topics: the German Nazi past, the British colonial legacy of separation from
the natives and the Allied fire-bombings of the city.
127
The Hamburg bourgeoisie claimed,
incorrectly, that they had opposed the Nazis during the war. They looked back to the city’s
pre-1933 liberal and cosmopolitan traditions and in so doing reasserted their own social,
economic and political pre-eminence in the city. British policy on the other hand, Rosenfeld
claimed, was unduly influenced by an outmoded colonial model and ‘reflected the essentially
conservative values and self-image of the Foreign Office establishment, by projecting a
generally old-fashioned, rose-tinted, middle and upper class view of British life.’
125
Sywottek, ‘Verständigung mit den “Engländern”’, pp150-151
Ahrens, Die Briten in Hamburg, pp446-447
Rosenfeld, The Anglo-German Encounter, p346, p353
128
Ibid, pp347-8
126
127
185
128
This study supports Rosenfeld’s view that part of the price paid for mutual reconciliation was
that difficult but important issues were avoided and rarely discussed, such as the city’s Nazi
past and, on the British side, the wartime bombing. These issues remained unresolved and
re-emerged in later years as a source of conflict between British and Germans and in public
debates within Germany. Her claim that British policy was unduly influenced by an outmoded
colonial model, however, was a generalisation that was true of many members of the
occupation but not of Berry. As discussed previously, there were strong ‘echoes of empire’ in
British occupation policy as formulated by men such as the former colonial official, Harold
Ingrams, Field-Marshal Montgomery and Generals Robertson and Bishop. Although Berry
was of similar age and could be considered part of the same ‘generation’, his personal
experience of Empire was negative. Berry’s life history was an illustration of an alternative
grand narrative, also highlighted by Rosenfeld, of Britain as a great power in Europe.
129
He
studied French and German at university, spoke both languages fluently, fought in the First
World War, served in the occupied Rhineland and worked in the City of London, then, as
now, the leading financial centre in Europe. His role as the representative of British interests
in occupied Germany was a natural extension of his earlier career and of British attempts to
maintain a pre-eminent role in post-war Europe.
Berry did not act as the representative of a power in decline. He was supremely confident in
his own values, ability and judgement, based on his personal experience and the
conclusions he had reached from his work in politics and business between the wars. He
understood and respected local traditions and never treated Germany as a colony. He did
not share the wartime ‘Vansittartist’ prejudices of some of his Labour Party colleagues
against the German Social Democrats and accepted without question that they represented
a progressive movement with similar ideals to his own. He represented the interests of his
city to the central British authorities, but he was willing to reprimand and overrule the local
German government if he considered this necessary. His experiences in the Rhineland from
1919-1925 were more important than the emerging Cold War in influencing his policy and
attitudes. Over time, they reinforced each other and the conclusion he could draw from both
129
Ibid, p18
186
was that he and his British colleagues had a vital role in actively supporting and encouraging
democratic forces within Germany.
Did he achieve his aims, and can the British occupation of Hamburg be considered a model
for a benevolent occupation under favourable circumstances? As recent historians have
shown, there were periods of tense conflict between occupiers and occupied, some actions
of the British were unnecessarily high-handed and antagonised the local population and
some difficult issues were ignored. There is little evidence of any long-term British influence
on the city arising from the occupation, apart from the continued existence of a few blocks of
flats and the Anglo-German club. On the other hand, Berry established excellent relations
with the German administration on a basis of mutual trust. He maintained British control in
those areas he considered important but did not interfere unnecessarily. He kept the peace
but tolerated dissent, provided a channel for the discussion of grievances and defused
difficult situations. He oversaw the transfer of power from direct British rule to an
independent German administration. He did what he could to promote economic
reconstruction, political renewal and personal reconciliation in the city, with results that have
generally stood the test of time. Overall, despite criticisms from recent historians, this offers
a reasonable model for the benign occupation of a defeated enemy.
187
Part III
Personal reconciliation:
Four young officers with no adult experience but war
188
7
John Chaloner, Michael Howard, Michael Palliser and Jan
Thexton: Changing aims and personal relationships: May 1945 –
May 1948
‘And I want to get to know the people here, and I can assure you that I wouldn’t learn much
if all I did was to listen to the rot that is talked in the Mess.’
1
In this chapter, the activities of four young officers responsible for the implementation of
British policy are examined, to discover whether they shared the aims of the senior officers
and civilian diplomats and administrators at the top of Military Government, and to explore
how personal relations between British and Germans changed over the course of the
occupation. To compensate for any bias in the source materials, which were inevitably more
personal than those used in previous chapters, and to help assess how representative this
small group of four individuals was of the views and actions of other young officers in
occupied Germany, this chapter also draws on a selection of interviews from the Imperial
War Museum (IWM) Sound Archive with twenty young British men and one woman, who
were born between 1913 and 1926 and worked for Military Government or the Control
Commission.
2
The family backgrounds of all four young officers were typical of the British professional and
middle classes and similar to those of the senior officers, diplomats and administrators
discussed in previous chapters. Though clearly less influential than the Military Governors,
army generals and senior civilian administrators, they all held responsible positions and
could be considered part of a ‘governing elite’ of British officers and administrators in
occupied Germany. Two of the young officers had considerable freedom to act on their own
initiative and were influential in their own right. John Chaloner was Press Officer in Hanover,
where he created the news magazine Der Spiegel. Michael Howard was Intelligence Officer
for T-Force, the unit within the British Army responsible for ‘evacuating’ German equipment,
1
Michael Howard, Otherwise Occupied: Letters home from the ruins of Nazi Germany (Tiverton, Devon: Old Street
Publishing, 2010), p147
2
The selection comprised all interviews held in the archive with those who met the age criteria and worked for the
Military Government or Control Commission between 1945 and 1948, with a few minor exceptions. All interviews
were undertaken by trained IWM staff following a consistent style. Selection criteria and methodological issues
arising from the use of this particular source are discussed in Appendix A. A table showing which of the selected
IWM interviews include references to the themes considered in this study, together with brief details of the personal
backgrounds and roles in Germany of the interviewees, is provided in Appendix B.
189
research laboratories, scientists and technicians to assist British economic recovery after the
3
war. The other two young officers worked in more routine positions. Michael Palliser was a
tank commander during the war and remained in Germany as part of the army of occupation
until he was demobilised in January 1947. Jan Thexton served during the war as a noncommissioned signals officer and joined the Control Commission for Germany after he was
demobilised, working initially in Reparations Division in charge of a team of 45 German staff,
and subsequently in the Mandatory Requirements Office, where he was responsible for
procuring items for the occupation forces from the German economy. He met and married
his wife in Germany.
4
Oral history interviews I undertook with Palliser and Thexton and personal accounts by
5
Howard and Chaloner were cross referenced with documentary evidence, if available, and
the twenty-one IWM interviews, to identify significant differences or variations and to ensure
that research findings were reasonably representative of the ‘younger generation’ of British
6
officers and NCOs in post-war Germany. The IWM interviewees include some who were a
little older than the four ‘protagonists’ and some from less established or affluent family
backgrounds. They also cover a greater diversity of roles, including intelligence,
denazification, the care of Displaced Persons, the Judge Advocate General’s department
responsible for prosecuting war crimes, RAF ground crew, two naval officers on
minesweeping and customs and excise patrols, two volunteers working for Friends’
Ambulance and Salvation Army units and a Russian interpreter.
The first theme examined in this chapter is the response of the ‘younger generation’ of
officers and NCOs to the end of the war and the situation in occupied Germany: what they
aimed to achieve before demobilisation and returning home and how their aims differed from
those of their senior officers. With some exceptions, they did not respond in the same way to
3
Appointed KCMG 1973 and GCMG 1977
The two interviews I undertook with Palliser and Thexton have been lodged with the IWM Sound Archive
(henceforward IWM SA) accession numbers 32236/4 (Michael Palliser) and 30895 (J.M.G. Thexton)
5
Michael Howard was interviewed for the IWM Sound Archive in 2008; occasional reference is made to this
interview, but the main source used for his story is his published memoir Otherwise Occupied, Letters home from
the ruins of Nazi Germany (Tiverton, Devon: Old Street Publishing, 2010). John Chaloner was interviewed by Der
Spiegel in 2003 and 2006, shortly before he died in 2007. I have consulted the tapes and transcripts of these
interviews, but the main sources used in his case were a history of the founding of Der Spiegel by Leo Brawand,
Der Spiegel - ein Besatzungskind: Wie die Pressefreiheit nach Deutschland kam (Hamburg: EVA Europäische
Verlagsanstalt, 2007), documents in The National Archives and the private business archive of Der Spiegel in
Hamburg, and some personal memories provided by his sister as written answers to questions.
6
In this chapter ‘IWM interviewees’ refers to the twenty-one interviews selected from the IWM Sound Archive, (i.e.
excluding Howard, Palliser and Thexton).
4
190
the death and destruction they saw around them. They did not share Montgomery’s,
Robertson’s or Bishop’s ideological concerns about the spread of disease and communism
or believe there was a religious or spiritual need to ‘save the soul of Germany’. They were
too young to have been politically active before the war or to have voted in a British General
Election. Unlike Ingrams, Albu, Flanders or Berry, they were not inspired by attempts to
convert the Germans to the British democratic ‘way of life’, or change the political and social
structure of Germany. Personal goals were generally more important than collective national
aims.
Two case studies, Michael Howard’s experience as Intelligence Officer for T-Force and John
Chaloner’s creation the news magazine Der Spiegel, illustrate how some exceptional
individuals combined personal ambition with an idealistic desire to make a significant
contribution to the aims of the occupation, as they understood them. Both Howard and
Chaloner encountered resistance from higher authorities as British policy changed, in 1946
and 1947, from direct control of the German economy to emphasise the need for
reconstruction and to devolve more power and responsibility to the Germans.
A second theme, illustrated by the personal experiences of all four young officers and many
7
IWM interviewees, is that of reconciliation with the former enemy. Personal relationships
with German civilians were widespread among junior officers and other ranks in the British
army and Control Commission, especially those whose work brought them into regular
contact with the local population. Some made friendships that lasted long after the
occupation and around ten thousand British men, including Jan Thexton, met their future
wives in Germany. The British occupiers came to see Germans as individuals, rather than as
reflections of the collective images promoted in wartime, but this did not happen
automatically and required a conscious effort on both sides.
Many of the British occupiers started to see their role in Germany as protecting ‘their’
Germans from a threat from Soviet Russia. This change to a Cold War mentality is not easy
to explain, as it developed soon after the end of the war and appeared to pre-date any
general awareness of international tensions between the four wartime allies at inter-
7
17/21 IWM interviews included references to personal relations with Germans.
191
governmental level, in the Council of Foreign Ministers or the Allied Control Council. This
change in attitude was due, at least in part, to a perception that despite the differences, they
had more in common with their former enemies, the Germans they met and worked with on a
daily basis, than with their former allies, Russian soldiers and Eastern European Displaced
Persons, whom they also encountered in Germany but met less frequently and nearly always
in negative circumstances of confrontation or disagreement.
Reconciliation between British
and Germans was possible because their personal experiences during the occupation
reinforced the similarities, rather than the differences, between them.
8
7.1 Personal backgrounds and positions in Germany
John Chaloner
9
John Chaloner in 1947
8
Petra Goedde, GIs and Germans: Culture, gender and foreign relations 1945-49 (New Haven & London: Yale
University Press, 2003), has argued that a similar dynamic applied in the US Zone, emphasising the gendered
aspect of the encounter and the ‘feminisation’ of Germany by American GIs. This thesis tends to support Goedde’s
conclusion (p205) that the Cold War was as much a consequence as a cause of improved personal relationships
with the Germans, although the British experience was not identical to that of the US. References by senior British
officials, such as General Robertson, to Germans as children in need of education, are reminiscent of imperial
‘paternalism’ and a process of ‘infantilisation’, rather than ‘feminisation’.
9
Photograph from Der Spiegel archive (henceforward DSA)
192
John Chaloner was born on 5 November 1924.
writers.
11
10
Both his parents were journalists and
His mother was the daughter of Sir Gilbert Barling, a distinguished surgeon and
Vice-Chancellor of Birmingham University.
12
She attended a girls’ boarding school before
studying music for three years in Germany, returning to England, a short-lived marriage,
separation and divorce. During the First World War she worked as a secret agent and
uncovered a German spy who was sabotaging production in a factory. She was promoted to
the rank of Captain and awarded an MBE for her efforts. She was disowned by her father
after her divorce, but eventually reconciled after she married a second time and had four
children, of whom John was the eldest.
13
Chaloner’s parents held liberal and progressive views. When he was ten years old they sent
him to the Beltane School in Wimbledon, where many of the other pupils were the children of
German Jewish immigrants.
14
The co-director of the school, Ernst Bulova, had formerly been
the principal of the Montessori Dahlem School in Berlin, before he was arrested by the
Gestapo in 1933 on account of his left-wing political activities and fled to Britain.
15
Chaloner
left school aged 15 and worked as assistant editor on the Boys Own Paper and later on a
magazine for Officer Cadets. He volunteered to join the army as a private, was soon
promoted to sergeant and identified as a potential officer. He was accepted at Sandhurst and
commissioned as an officer in the Westminster Dragoons.
16
He took part in the invasion of
Normandy and subsequent battles in France, the Netherlands and Germany as commander
of a Sherman flail tank. On one occasion his tank was destroyed by enemy fire and, though
he survived unharmed, one of his crew was killed.
17
At the end of the war, by now promoted
to captain, he heard there were opportunities for officers with experience of publishing to join
PR/ISC, the Public Relations and Information Services Control division of the British Military
10
John Chaloner Obituary, The Times, 16 Feb. 2007
Information provided by Joan Woodward, John Chaloner’s sister, as written answers to questions, 10 April 2010
12
L.G. Parsons, ‘Barling, Sir (Harry) Gilbert, baronet (1855-1940), rev. Jeffrey S. Reznick, Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/30593, accessed 13 May 2010]
13
Woodward, written answers to questions
14
Hildegard Feidel-Mertz, ‘Integration and Formation of Identity: Exile Schools in Great Britain’, Shofar: An
Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol.23, No.1, (2004), pp71-84
15
Douglas Martin, ‘Ernst Bulova, 98, Founder of Camp with a Free Spirit’ The New York Times, 28 Jan. 2001.
16
Woodward, written answers to questions
17
Leo Brawand, Der Spiegel - ein Besatzungskind: Wie die Pressefreiheit nach Deutschland kam (Hamburg: EVA
Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 2007), p14
11
193
Government. As he could speak German, though not fluently, and saw this as an alternative
to a possible posting to the Far East, he applied and was accepted.
18
As press officer in Hanover, Chaloner was responsible for re-establishing German
newspapers, initially under direct Military Government control and subsequently licensed to
suitable German individuals. He established newspapers in Lüneburg, Osnabrück and
Hanover, before creating a new magazine, Der Spiegel.
19
After returning to Britain in early
1947 he formed a company, Seymour Press, which became one of the largest distributors of
foreign publications in the UK. He also published six novels and wrote and illustrated a
series of books for children. In later life he bought and ran a dairy farm in Sussex, started a
vineyard, acted as publishing adviser to the Institute of Directors and Confederation of British
Industry on their in-house journals and wrote numerous letters to The Times. He died in
2007, aged 82.
20
Michael Howard
Michael Howard in 1947
18
Ibid, pp27-28
Ibid, p53
John Chaloner Obituary, The Times, 16 Feb. 2007
21
Photograph from Howard, Otherwise Occupied
19
20
194
21
Michael Howard was the youngest of the four young officers discussed in this chapter. He
was born in May 1926, in Fiji, where his father was a Colonial Administrator. He left Fiji when
he was eight years old to attend boarding school in England. At the outbreak of war in 1939
he was at school at Rugby,
22
where he was a keen sportsman and athlete. He volunteered to
join the forces as soon as he could, on his seventeenth birthday in May 1943, but was not
called up for another fifteen months, too late to see active service. Meanwhile he joined the
Home Guard and Junior Training Corps at school. He was commissioned as an officer in the
Rifle Brigade in August 1945, three months after the end of the war in Europe.
23
Rather than joining the First or Second Battalions of the Rifle Brigade, he was sent to a
holding unit, in Osnabrück in North West Germany. In a conversation with John Kirby,
another newly commissioned officer, whose father was Deputy Chief of Staff for the Control
Commission, he learned about a new unit, supposedly engaged in secret and interesting
24
work.
T-Force had been established a year earlier, to examine and secure factories and
research laboratories, by-passed by the front-line troops as they advanced. Their job was to
investigate these facilities, guard them to prevent looting and damage to potentially valuable
equipment and secure and preserve documents. After the end of the war their role
broadened to provide a base for the teams of scientists and businessmen sent to Germany
by BIOS, the British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee, to investigate German scientific
and technical capabilities and ‘evacuate’ reparations material, including documents and
blueprints, machinery and equipment, and key scientists and technicians, to Britain.
25
Howard had been offered a place at Cambridge University and hoped for as short a stay in
the army as possible. However, he became absorbed in his work, rapidly received promotion
from 2
nd
Lieutenant to Captain and stayed until he was demobilised in December 1947, by
which time the work of T-Force was largely complete and the unit was being wound down.
He went up to Cambridge in January 1948. After completing the shortened two year degree
course usual at the time, he was selected from 200 Oxbridge graduates to work in the
London office of W.R. Grace, a large US-based, international manufacturing and trading
22
One of the most prestigious British public schools
IWM SA, interview with Michael Howard, accession no. 31405
Ibid; Howard, Otherwise Occupied, pp22-3
25
Sean Longden, T-Force: the Race for Nazi War Secrets, 1945 (London: Constable, 2009)
23
24
195
company, and subsequently followed a career in business.
26
He published his memoir of life
in occupied Germany in 2010.
Michael Palliser
Michael Palliser, by Elliott & Fry, 1942 © National Portrait Gallery
Michael Palliser was born in 1922 to a family with significant naval connections on both
sides. His father, Admiral Sir Arthur Palliser, joined the Royal Navy as a young man in 1907,
rose to command first a destroyer then a battleship and, from 1938-1940, was captain of the
gunnery school HMS Excellent at Whale Island near Portsmouth. At the end of the Second
World War, he was Fourth Sea Lord at the Admiralty and finished his naval career as
Commander-in-Chief, East Indies. Michael Palliser’s mother was the daughter of a
distinguished naval engineer, who had been in charge of naval dockyards at Simon’s Town
in South Africa and Cockatoo Island, Sydney, Australia.
27
Because his parents were often overseas, Palliser spent most of his childhood with his
grandparents. He learnt to speak French fluently at an early age, as the only way to talk to
the family’s French cook and housemaid. While still a young child, he travelled widely in
Europe. His mother’s brother, a soldier in the army, took him and his grandmother on a
26
27
IWM SA, Howard
IWM SA, interview with Michael Palliser undertaken for this thesis, accession no. 32236/4
196
series of holiday trips across Germany to Berlin, where he remembered seeing riots in the
streets, to Danzig and East Prussia, Prague, Vienna and Italy. He suspected later that his
uncle was engaged in military intelligence gathering and he and his grandmother acted as
cover for him.
28
He went to school at Wellington College,
29
finishing in the summer of 1939. He remembered
spending most of July that year digging air raid shelters at school. At Oxford he read classics
for a little over a year, before joining the Coldstream Guards. After initial training and six
months at Sandhurst, he was commissioned as an officer in an armoured tank battalion. He
spent a further two years with the regiment in England preparing for the invasion of
Normandy and landed in France two weeks after D-Day. He fought with the army through
France, Belgium and Holland, across the Rhine to Germany, and on VE Day had reached
Neumünster, a small town in Schleswig Holstein, north of Hamburg.
30
After the end of the war, he stayed in Germany for eighteen months, before his
demobilisation in January 1947, stationed mainly in Berlin and later in Bad Godesberg, near
Bonn. Despite claiming that his unit was ‘pretty parochial’ and had little contact with
Germans, he could still recall, in considerable detail, many circumstances and events which
made an impression on him, including being placed in charge of the administration of a
German village for two weeks shortly after VE Day, attending a performance by the Red
Army Choir in Berlin, a long train journey through the Ruhr in a Wagons-Lit sleeping car,
seeing large numbers of Displaced Persons and ‘the constant movement of people’, and
conversations with a widowed German countess and her sister, who lived in a large house in
Bad Godesberg which had been requisitioned for his officers’ mess.
31
After leaving Germany in 1947 he had a distinguished career in the Foreign Office and
played a significant role in British applications to join the European Community under both
Labour and Conservative governments. In 1948 he married the daughter of Paul-Henri
Spaak, Prime Minister of Belgium and later Secretary General of NATO. After various
diplomatic postings, he was appointed private secretary to the Prime Minister Harold Wilson
28
Ibid
A leading British public school, with a reputation for preparing pupils to follow a career as officers in the army
IWM SA, Palliser
31
Ibid
29
30
197
in 1966, Minister at the British Embassy in Paris in 1969, head of the UK delegation to the
European Community in Brussels in 1971 and, following British accession, UK ambassador
and permanent representative to the European Communities in 1973. Two years later he
was appointed Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and
Head of the Diplomatic Service.
32
He died on 19 June 2012.
Jan Thexton
Jan Thexton was born in April 1920 in Plymouth. His father was a non-commissioned officer
in the army and he spent his early childhood in Bermuda, where his father was Garrison
Chief Clerk to the Governor, responsible for much of the administration of the British base.
He returned to the UK in the late 1920s, when his father was offered a position in the Military
Secretary’s branch of the War Office. After leaving school, he worked in an accountant’s
office, joined the Middlesex Yeomanry as a territorial and was called up shortly before the
start of hostilities in 1939, to help prepare for mobilisation. He was posted to a signals unit in
an armoured tank division and fought for two years in North Africa, where he took part in the
decisive battles of El Alamein and Medenine. He returned to England to prepare for the
invasion of Normandy, landing on D-Day plus one, and fought with the army through France,
Belgium and Holland into Germany. At the end of the war he was in Hanover. His rank at the
time was sergeant. He said later that he and several others in his unit were offered
commissions but declined, because everyone who accepted was sent to the Far East, to
fight against the Japanese.
33
After twelve months with the army in Germany, he decided to stay in Germany and join the
civilian Control Commission.
34
Though officially designated as civil servants, Control
Commission staff were offered temporary contracts, with no security of employment. He
entered a competition for entry into the permanent civil service, was successful and stayed in
Germany for over twenty years. His first position was in the disarmament and reparations
branch of the Control Commission, where he was responsible, with a team of 45 German
staff, for compiling lists of armaments plants and equipment to be made available as
32
Who’s Who 1983 (London: A C Black, 1983), p1709; People of Today (London: Debrett’s, 1997), pp1473-4
IWM SA, interview with J.M.G. Thexton undertaken for this thesis, accession no. 30895
34
Ibid
33
198
reparations for the British and other Western allies. He then moved to the Mandatory
Requirements office, where he was responsible for purchasing equipment and supplies for
the British, Belgian, Norwegian and Canadian occupation forces. He met his wife in
Germany soon after the end of the war, when he was working on restoring the German
telephone system and she was a supervisor in the Hanover telephone exchange, though
they were not able to marry until June 1947.
35
He started to learn German before the war and did what he could to improve his ability to
speak the language. He was proud of this and considered it did much to further his career.
After German rearmament in the 1950s, he was a liaison officer at the British Embassy,
where, in contrast to his earlier work on disarmament and reparations, his job was to try to
persuade the newly formed German armed forces to buy British equipment. He became
close friends with General Albert Schnez, later appointed Inspekteur des Heeres, the most
senior position in the West German army. He was godfather to one of Schnez’s sons and the
two families stayed in touch for the rest of their lives, regularly exchanging letters and phone
calls and visiting each other when they travelled to Britain or Germany. He and his wife had
no children and he said later that this family relationship was the closest they came to having
their own children. After leaving Germany and returning to the UK, he continued to work as a
civil servant at the Ministry of Defence in London, ending his career as director of a branch
helping to promote British arms exports to Europe, Turkey, Iran, Israel and Pakistan. He died
on 14 June 2008.
7.2
36
Personal fulfilment rather than collective goals
‘I just didn’t really know what to do. I was far too old to start again for accountancy or
anything like that. I had no other qualifications apart from my basic educational qualifications.
I was no good to anybody really.’
37
The four young officers and twenty-one IWM interviewees discussed in this chapter were
generally practical, realistic and conscientious. None recalled hearing or reading the
35
Ibid
Ibid
37
Ibid
36
199
exhortations from Montgomery, Robertson or other senior officers to ‘save the soul of
Germany’ or ‘rebuild civilisation’ let alone being influenced or inspired by these. Similarly, noone mentioned reading articles in the British Zone Review, Montgomery’s proclamations to
the German people or his or Robertson’s talks on the British Forces Network radio
broadcasts.
38
Most were in Germany when the fighting stopped and had to stay while awaiting
demobilisation or, as in the case of two interpreters, were posted there when the war was
over. Some were filling in time before they could progress to their chosen career, such as
one IWM interviewee who wanted to train as a teacher, but was faced with a two year
waiting list before he could take up his college place.
39
Two naval officers were reluctant to
return to civilian life after six or seven years at sea.
40
The only IWM interviewee who
appeared to have applied for his position for idealistic reasons was a conscientious objector,
who had a strong commitment to voluntary work and community service.
41
Some took their work very seriously, including all four of the young officers considered in
detail. Jan Thexton spoke of working long hours when he was compiling lists of war plants
and machinery available for reparations. He was in the office from 8am until 8 or 9pm.
Sometimes he was travelling and did not return home for days at a time.
42
Others, however,
treated their work more casually. For some in the army of occupation or the air force in
Berlin, the end of the war meant a return to peace-time soldiering, but in a foreign country.
One IWM interviewee spoke of ‘going back to polishing things again’.
43
Another could not
remember what he did in Germany, referring to ‘staff duties’ or ‘something like that’.
44
One
had ‘a jolly twelve months’ in a jazz band at HQ British Air Forces of Occupation at
Bückeburg from Sept 1945 - Sept 1946, playing there or at nearby locations most nights in
the week. He had a ‘sainted life’, he said, and could do more or less as he liked. They were
38
Only one IWM interviewee mentioned Montgomery and this was in relation to the war in North Africa, not
Germany. He said that when Montgomery arrived the whole atmosphere changed, adding ‘incredible man.’ (IWM
SA, Bernard Garrood)
39
IWM SA, Eric Gregg-Rowbury
40
IWM SA, George Philip Henry James, Kenneth Taylor
41
IWM SA, Richard Harland
42
IWM SA, Thexton
43
IWM SA, Ronald Mallabar
44
IWM SA, Garrood
200
just waiting for demobilisation but ‘it was a lovely way to do this … It was just one big ball
actually while we were there.’
45
Most knew little about other divisions or how their actions related to the overall aims of the
occupation. They had no doubts that the war had been just and necessary but, unlike their
senior officers, they were not motivated by high ideals or the need to serve their country or
the British Empire. Now the war was over, there was a retreat from the public to the private
sphere and they were, above all, concerned for their own welfare. Having accepted during
the war that this had to be subordinated to the greater good, they could look to the future and
start to think again about their personal needs and ambitions.
46
A younger generation?
It has been common practice in German historiography and culture to classify people as
belonging to a particular age group or ‘generation’, following theoretical work by Karl
Mannheim and Helmut Fogt,
47
according to which, for a ‘generation’ to be of historical
significance, a group of people need to share common experiences and have a similar
understanding of the meaning of historical events, as well as having been born within the
48
same period of time.
It is not claimed that a generational framework explains British actions
and attitudes in Germany, in the same way as, for example, Christina von Hodenberg used
generations as a model to explain changes in post-war German media,
49
but a categorisation
by age and a comparison between older and younger ‘generations’, can make it easier to
understand some of the diversity of views among the British in occupied Germany.
The Military Governors and army generals discussed in Part 1 were all born within a few
years of each other.
50
They shared similar experiences in their early lives and possessed a
common understanding of historical events, such as the First World War and the British
Empire, so they appear to meet the criteria required for consideration as a ‘generation’. They
45
IWM SA, John Ashcombe
Similar views were held by many other British soldiers facing demobilisation at the end of the war, as described in
Alan Allport, Demobbed, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009)
47
Karl Mannheim: ‘Der Problem der Generationen’, Kölner Vierteljahrshefte fur Sociologie No.7, 1928, pp157-185
and pp309-330; Helmut Fogt, Politische Generationen, Empirische Bedeutung und theoretisches Modell (Opladen:
1982), cited in Christina von Hodenberg, Konsens und Krise: Eine Geschichte der westdeutschen
Medienöffentlichkeit 1945-1973 (Göttingen, Wallstein Verlag, 2006)
48
For a discussion of the use and relevance of the concept in modern German historiography see Ulrike Jureit &
Michael Wildt (eds.), Generationen: Zur Relevanz eines wissenschaftlichen Grundbegriffs (Hamburg: Hamburger
Edition, 2005).
49
Hodenberg, Konsens und Krise
50
Robertson was born in 1896, Bishop in 1897, Horrocks in 1895, Templer in 1898, Douglas in 1893 and
Montgomery, the oldest, in 1887
46
201
all received a traditional public school education, followed (with the exception of Douglas
who went to Oxford University) by attendance at the Military Academies at Sandhurst or
Woolwich, where they were commissioned as officers. They all fought as young men in the
First World War and stayed on as regular soldiers or re-joined the forces later. In the interwar
years they served in the British Empire, in India, the Middle East or Africa, and attended or
taught at the army or RAF staff colleges. Though not from especially wealthy or aristocratic
families, they were very much part of the British professional establishment. They had grown
up at a time when the British Empire was at its height, fought to defend the Empire in the
First World War and worked to protect and preserve its power and influence in the interwar
years.
The four young officers considered in this chapter were around 25-30 years younger, born
between 1920 and 1926. Eleven of the IWM interviewees were the same age and ten a little
older, born between 1913 and 1919. Although the family background of the four
‘protagonists’ was similar to that of the senior officers, analysis of the wider group of IWM
Sound Archive interviewees, who had little in common apart from their age, reveals the
limitations of a generational form of analysis. Class and social background, religious
convictions, their expectations of what to do when the war was over, and their personal
skills, training and aptitudes, appear to have had at least as great an influence on their
understanding of their task in Germany, as any shared experience as a generational cohort.
Their experiences before joining the forces were very different. Some had already left school
and spent several years at work, some had been to university for a year or two before being
called up, others joined as soon as they left school. There were significant differences in
outlook even within the small group of university students at Oxford during the war. One IWM
interviewee said that there were no pacifists at Oxford in 1942, all were servicemen and
‘deeply engaged on the whole thing’,
51
whereas another, also a student at Oxford but himself
a pacifist and conscientious objector (CO), recalled that there were ‘quite a lot of students at
Oxford who were also COs.’
52
Yet despite diversity in personal background and outlook, all four young officers and many of
the IWM interviewees later remembered the war and its aftermath as a significant formative
51
52
IWM SA, Frank Arthur Bicknell
IWM SA, Harland
202
influence on the rest of their lives. Michael Palliser, for example, said that his experience in
Europe and Germany at the end of the war had made him a convinced European, as this
was the best way of trying to ensure that the devastation and destruction he saw then would
never be repeated and war between two European countries, such as France and Germany,
would become unthinkable.
53
On a more personal level, John Chaloner referred, in a semi-
autobiographical novel published in 1991, to the combination of starting his first successful
publishing venture and experiencing his ‘first love affair of timeless but futureless passion’,
as ‘a pattern he would always seek for the rest of his life.’
54
To some extent therefore, the
‘younger generation’ of young men and a few women in occupied Germany did share a
common experience during the war and after, and a comparison with the older and stronger
‘generation’ of senior officers can reveal similarities and differences between the two groups.
Reactions to death and destruction
The statistics of the scale of damage to the major towns and cities in Germany are well
known, with official British figures stating that in Cologne, for example, 66 per cent of the
houses were totally destroyed and in Düsseldorf 93 per cent were uninhabitable.
55
According
to government statistics, around 600,000 civilians in Germany were killed by bombing raids,
compared with 62,000 in Britain. A further 900,000 civilians were wounded and 7.5 million
made homeless.
56
Many more civilians, of course, were killed in Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union during the German invasion and retreat,
57
but British soldiers did not see this
for themselves.
Whereas the senior officers quoted previously, and other observers including journalists and
war correspondents, reacted with apparent shock and wrote that ‘you have to see it to
believe it’, only a few of the young officers and IWM interviewees discussed in this chapter
responded similarly to ruined buildings and the scale of destruction in the German cities. The
senior officers could tell a relatively simple story, which emphasised their own achievements,
53
IWM SA, Palliser
John Chaloner, Occupational Hazard (Wallington, Surrey: Severn House Publishers, 1991), p402
55
Michael Balfour and John Mair, Four Power Control in Germany and Austria 1945-1946 (Oxford: Survey of
International Affairs 1939-1946, Oxford University Press, 1956), p7
56
Alice Förster and Birgit Beck, ‘Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and World War II: Can a Psychiatric Concept help
us Understand Postwar Society’ in Richard Bessel and Dirk Schumann, (eds.) Life after Death: Approaches to a
Cultural and Social History of Europe during the 1940s and 1950s (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003),
pp28-9; Jordan (ed.), Conditions of Surrender, p149
57
Jordan (ed.), Conditions of Surrender, p149, gives figures of an estimated 4.2 million civilians killed in Poland and
7 million in the Soviet Union.
54
203
of chaos and destruction followed by the restoration of law and order. The younger
generation may have related the ruined cities they saw in Germany to their personal
experiences, which were largely those of wartime, and assumed that death and destruction
were an obvious consequence of war, too well-known to be worth mentioning.
The few who did refer to the scale of destruction in Germany showed a mixed response. Two
IWM interviewees described it as shocking and unjustified.
58
The scale of destruction in
Berlin and the industrial towns of the Ruhr made a lasting impression on those stationed
there, such as one young man, who was part of the British advance guard sent to Berlin in
1945: ‘It was like the rest of Germany really … No-one who didn’t see Germany in 1945 and
1946 knows what bombing’s all about … It really appalled everyone …You don’t let much
worry you at that age’ but ‘it appalled me.’ There were still many bodies buried under the
rubble. The summer of 1945 was very hot and after it rained the smell was terrible. He added
that he could understand why Bomber Harris was ostracised after the war and that the
destruction of Dresden could be compared to a war atrocity.
59
Others, however, assumed
that destruction on this scale was an inevitable consequence of war, perhaps regrettable,
perhaps a notable achievement which had contributed to winning the war, but no more than
the Germans deserved and had inflicted on others.
Michael Howard had not seen active service in the war. When asked in an interview in 2008
about the condition of Osnabrück, he replied that it was quite severely damaged, but what
struck him most was that it must have been the target for medium artillery as many houses
had lost their roofs and top floors: ‘Yes, it was a pretty desolate place.’ The barracks where
he stayed was relatively undamaged but the town was a heap of rubble. This was much as
expected and made no particular impression on him: ‘It was much as it ought to be.’
60
Contemporary letters to his parents gave a slightly different, but not inconsistent, picture.
The scale of destruction, he wrote, was an ‘amazing sight’, but he did not draw any
conclusions from this, apart from describing his concern for the animals and children, (who
presumably, in his view, did not share responsibility for the war with the adults), and
58
IWM SA, Samuel Falle, James Samuel Chambers
IWM SA, Chambers
60
IWM SA, Howard
59
204
expressing the conventional view that the bombing had been effective in destroying
Germany’s ability to wage another war for ‘some forty years.’
61
When Michael Palliser was asked in 2010 if he was surprised by the destruction he saw in
German towns and cities, he related this to his own experiences of bombing in Britain,
fighting in Normandy, and having to ‘knock out’ church spires in Holland, which might
‘appear savage’, but was necessary as they made an ideal observation and sniper post for
the enemy.
62
Without being explicit, he appeared to be making two points: that the
destruction was not unique to Germany, and that destruction was sometimes an undesirable
but necessary means to an end. Later in the interview, he told the story of a conversation
with a Swedish businessman, in the restaurant car of a train travelling through the industrial
cities of the Ruhr. The Swede looked out of the window at this ‘absolute lunar landscape’
and ‘banged on about how dreadful we’d been to bomb the Ruhr.’ Palliser was furious with
his companion who ‘had enjoyed his neutrality during the war’ and replied that if he looked at
cities like London and Coventry, he would soon realise that the Ruhr was not unique.
63
Palliser was incorrect in telling his Swedish travelling companion that the extent of damage
caused by Allied bombing in the Ruhr was similar to that in London or Coventry, though he
may have believed this at the time. As the official statistics showed, the destruction of
buildings and number of civilian casualties was far greater in Germany than in Britain and far
greater in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe than in Germany. But Palliser was surely
correct that the destruction of the Ruhr and other German cities was not unique, and needed
to be placed in the wider context of whether the end justified the means.
War crimes and Holocaust survivors
Only four of the twenty-one IWM interviewees made any mention of the Holocaust, war
crimes or atrocities. One was an officer who was a member of the panel on a trial at the
Volkswagen works, where 450 babies born to Displaced Persons were kept in a nursery and
allowed to starve to death.
64
Another was a lawyer who worked as a prosecutor for the
Judge Advocate General’s department. Some of those he prosecuted were, in his view quite
61
Howard, Otherwise Occupied, p14, p54
IWM SA, Palliser
Ibid
64
IWM SA, Martin Cosmo Hastings
62
63
205
rightly, found guilty and condemned to death, such as a German official who had taken an
Allied airman, who had landed by parachute, to his office and shot him, and an interrogator
at Neuengamme concentration camp, who fitted a spike to a chair, operated by a pedal, to
make those he questioned stand up more quickly; an idea he had taken from Dachau.
Occasionally, though, he dealt with cases he was less sure about, such as six German
civilians accused of ill-treating an RAF officer. ‘They had done it’, he said, but ‘most people
would have done the same after an air raid’ and it could be difficult to understand that while
the pilot was in an aeroplane they could shoot him, but if he landed by parachute, he was a
POW and they must not touch him. On balance he considered ‘it was fairly done.’
65
Whereas most cases of war crimes were clear cut, others were less so. With incomplete
information, it could be difficult to know how victims met their fate. Another officer, based at
Travemünde on the Baltic coast, spoke of a ‘ghastly incident’ in April or May 1945, shortly
before the surrender, when a ship in the harbour, loaded with camp victims, was taken out to
sea and sunk by the guards. At least, he said, that was one story. Another was that the ship
had been sunk by a British aircraft and he was inclined to believe this second version. In
June a large number of bodies were washed up on the beach and SS prisoners-of-war were
made to haul out the bodies.
66
It is sometimes claimed that British and American soldiers who witnessed the liberation of
the concentration camps were provoked to acts of revenge. Richard Bessel, for example,
referred to US forces after the liberation of Dachau, where ‘Germans were gunned down
while surrendering; captives were shot at the slightest provocation…’
67
He claimed that the
liberation of Bergen Belsen had a similar effect on the British, taking as an example the
British military commandant at Münster who was ‘inclined initially to take a punitive attitude
towards the German population due to [his] personal experiences of liberating the camps.’
68
For the individuals examined in this chapter, however, there is no evidence that initial
65
IWM SA, James Robert Heppell
IWM SA, Bicknell. The officer was probably correct. On 3 May 1945 the Cap Arcona and two other ships holding
former inmates from Neuengamme concentration camp were attacked by the RAF on the mistaken assumption they
were troop transports. Around 7,000 prisoners were burnt, drowned or shot trying to escape. See Richard Bessel,
Germany 1945: from War to Peace (London, New York, Sydney, Toronto: Simon & Schuster, 2009), p52
67
Bessel, Germany 1945, p161
68
Ibid, p164
66
206
feelings of hatred were translated into acts of revenge.
69
A more common reaction was to
make a distinction between those who had committed war crimes and the individuals they
met face to face. One IWM interviewee described how they were always hearing rumours of
SS atrocities, of their having shot prisoners, or murdered Americans, which made the British
soldiers angry:
But when you see a person face to face and he’s unarmed you lose this anger and
wildness, and just take them prisoner or whatever.
70
The only two prisoners he took personally were ‘a couple of lads of about 16’ who ‘came out
of a wood with their hands up. They were just terrified…’
71
Only one of those considered in this chapter, John Chaloner, was present at or soon after
the liberation of the concentration camps. His sister wrote that seeing Belsen soon after
liberation was an experience that affected him deeply and the memory stayed with him for
the rest of his life,
72
but there is no record of his referring to it in any public context. He did so
only in private conversations and in fictional works based on his experiences in Germany. In
his novel Occupational Hazard, he described the reaction of a tank crew after seeing Belsen
for the first time: ‘Two of my men who have after all, seen a few things, were very quiet, and
then suddenly sick. They lay on the grass. We brewed up tea, and they had a cigarette and
everyone said that nothing was too bad for the Germans.’
73
Nevertheless, although the
experience was deeply moving, it did not prevent him from making lasting personal
friendships with German journalists and editors he met later when re-establishing
newspapers in Osnabrück, Lüneburg and Hanover.
74
His sister recalled a long conversation
with him about Belsen. She believed that, of all his wartime experiences, it was the one that
affected him most deeply, together with seeing tanks either side of him blown up ‘with his
69
Many influential British observers did not consider revenge a suitable response to war crimes and atrocities. The
war journalist Leonard Mosley, who was present at the liberation of Belsen, reported that British soldiers, enraged
by the piles of corpses, beat the SS guards and ordered them to collect the bodies ‘to the accompaniment of lewd
shouts and laughs’ but added that it made him ‘pensive to see British soldiers beating and kicking men and women,
even under such provocation.’ L. Mosley, Report from Germany (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1945), p93. See also
Patrick Gordon Walker, The Lid Lifts (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1945). Gordon-Walker recorded the first Jewish
eve of Sabbath service held in Belsen, later broadcast on the BBC. He recorded in his diary that he was at first,
‘very angry with the Germans’ but argued against a desire for revenge. There was a need, he wrote, to ‘restore our
respect for death’ and ‘no human life should be taken away without due formality’. In his view, those responsible for
the concentration camps should be punished with the death penalty, but this had to be done by following proper
legal processes, not through the same methods as the Nazis.
70
IWM SA, Mallabar
71
Ibid
72
Woodward, Written answers to questions
73
Chaloner, Occupational Hazard, p353
74
Brawand, Der Spiegel - ein Besatzungskind, p196
207
mates inside’, adding that, in later life, he was ‘deeply melancholy about man’s inhumanity to
75
man.’
Contemporary reports indicate that all British soldiers in Germany knew of the liberation of
the camps in April and May 1945, from reports in newspapers or by word of mouth from
colleagues, if not from their own experience,
76
but this did not appear to affect their
behaviour when carrying out their duties. They combined a harsh view of Germans
collectively with a pragmatic view of those they met as individuals. Michael Palliser, for
example, said that, although neither he nor anyone in his battalion personally discovered or
visited any of the camps, another battalion in his regiment had and they heard accounts
‘which were absolutely horrific.’ When asked if this changed, or possibly reinforced, his
attitude to the Germans, he replied that:
I think it possibly reinforced it a bit. I’m not sure. I think that there was already a feeling that
this had been a very barbaric regime, which was partly the result of whatever you like,
wartime propaganda and so on, but I wouldn’t say we were surprised. I think there was a
tendency to say ‘how typically German’ in the mood of the time. I think that we were almost
beyond being surprised by anything.
77
This attitude was reflected in a similar comment from the officer on the war crimes panel at
the Volkswagen works, who, when asked why the babies had starved to death, replied that:
‘It was just typical German … [The Germans believed] they were Slav and there was nothing
lower in life.’
78
When asked about the camps, he replied that he had not seen any himself,
but knew others who had. He added, incongruously, that he went to Belsen once, to buy a
dog from some Germans who had moved into the huts.
79
A second interviewee said that he
passed through Belsen in June 1946, when leaving Germany, but it had been cleared and
there were no inmates.
80
These anecdotes illustrate a possible reason why the care of former inmates of the
concentration camps, especially Jewish survivors, was not given the priority by the British
75
Woodward, Written answers to questions
E.g. WO32/15772, Report by Lt. Col. J.H.A. Sparrow (later Warden of All Soul’s College, Oxford), ‘Report on Visit
to 21 Army Group and Tour of Second Army 30th March to 5th May 1945’. Sparrow reported that all knew of the
‘uncovering’ of the camps but reactions were mixed. While there was some increase in hostility to Germans
generally, most British soldiers made a distinction between the SS, who they believed were responsible for the
camps, and the ‘ordinary Germany citizen’.
77
IWM SA, Palliser
78
IWM SA, Martin Cosmo Hastings
79
Ibid
80
IWM SA, Bicknell
76
208
occupiers that many historians believed it should.
81
The number of Jewish survivors in the
British Zone was relatively low compared to the US Zone and remained constant throughout
most of the occupation period. Estimates vary, but in June 1946 the number of Jewish
Displaced Persons in the British Zone was calculated by UNRRA as 19,373, around half of
whom were accommodated in Hohne camp, near Bergen Belsen, and most of the remainder
in cities such as Hamburg, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Hanover and Kiel.
number was higher, around 36,000 in January 1946,
83
immigration of around 250,000 Jews from Eastern Europe.
84
82
In the US Zone the
and increased rapidly, due to
With a few exceptions, such as
John Chaloner, most of the British occupiers did not experience the liberation of the camps
or meet Jewish survivors of the Holocaust. Many more would have encountered the far
larger number of Russian, Polish and East European Displaced Persons (DPs), of whom
there were over two million in the British Zone at the end of the war, over 600,000 in October
1945 and 365,872, mostly Polish DPs, in June 1946.
85
For those not personally affected, or who had not seen the liberation of camps, the
Holocaust, though recognised as ‘absolutely horrific’, could appear as something that had
occurred in the past, rather than as a major concern for the present and future, and not
morally, but numerically insignificant compared to the two million DPs who remained in the
British Zone after the end of the war and five million ethnic German refugees who arrived in
the zone between 1945 and 1951.
86
The approach of trying to draw a line under the horrors
of the past was perhaps best typified by an eight page supplement on Belsen in the second
issue of the British Zone Review on 13 October 1945. This was described as: ‘An account,
based on Official Reports, of the uncovering by the British Army of the Belsen Concentration
camp and of the action taken during the vital days to minimise the suffering of the 60,000
inmates.’
81
For example, Ursula Büttner, ‘Not nach der Befreiung. Die Situation der Deutschen Juden in der britischen
Besatzungszone 1945 – 1948” in Das Unrechtsregime Vol. 2 (Hamburg: Christians, 1986), pp373-406; Frank Stern,
‘The Historic Triangle: Occupiers, Germans and Jews in postwar Germany’, in Robert G. Moeller (ed.), West
Germany under Construction: Politics, Society and Culture in the Adenauer Era (Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press, 1997), pp199-229
82
Johannes-Dieter Steinert, Nach Holocaust und Zwangsarbeit: Britische humanitäre Hilfe in Deutschland, Die
Helfer, die Befreiten und die Deutschen (Osnabrück: secolo Verlag, 2000), pp104-5, p123; See also Büttner, ‘Not
nach der Befreiung’, pp374-5; Hagit Lavsky, ‘A Community of Survivors: Bergen-Belsen as a Jewish Centre after
1945’ in Jo Reilly, David Cesarani, Tony Kushner, Colin Richmond (eds.) Belsen in History and Memory (London &
Portland Oregon: Frank Cass, 1997), pp162-177
83
Steinert, Nach Holocaust und Zwangsarbeit, p101
84
Ibid, p100; Atina Grossmann, ‘Trauma, Memory and Motherhood: Germans and Jewish Displaced persons in
Post-Nazi Germany, 1945-1949’, in Bessel and Schumann, (eds.), Life after Death, pp97-98
85
Steinert, Nach Holocaust und Zwangsarbeit, p130
86
Balfour and Mair, Four Power Control, p121
209
The story of that greatest of all exhibitions of ‘man’s inhumanity to man’ which was Belsen
Concentration Camp is known throughout the world. Therefore it is not intended to repeat it
here except very briefly, and then only as background for the story of what the British
soldier did with the aid of British medical students and units of the British Red Cross to
succour its tens of thousands of stricken inmates to prevent the spread in epidemic form of
the disease and infection there found, and finally to wipe Belsen off the face of the earth.
87
Belsen was therefore presented as something which was uniquely horrifying and ‘known
throughout the world’, but which had occurred in the past, been dealt with and was now best
‘wiped off the face of the earth.’
7.3
Two individuals, out of step with official policy
‘We have been forced by the change of policy to come out with our hands up in a lot of
cases, and I don’t like it. About every third day I put up a very strong protest, and one of
these days I am going to be jumped on.’
88
‘I know myself that this business of producing a magazine means not just an exciting new
idea but real hard work, patience, a keenness that must not flag and a willingness to go on
learning; all things that cannot be gained without sweat, blood and some tears.’
89
Despite a general lack of idealism and the absence of the ‘missionary spirit’ so evident
among the senior offices, a few young officers, such as Chaloner and Howard, took the
initiative to go beyond the call of duty to do what they considered right, even when this was
not consistent with official policy. Their stories illustrate how the legacy of the British
occupation could depend on individual initiative. Michael Howard started by looking for an
interesting job and useful experience for a few months before going to university, but
became absorbed in his work. He continued to pursue his original goals of ‘evacuating’
material and equipment from Germany to benefit the British economy, as official policy
changed, until the Deputy Military Governor, Brian Robertson, issued a directive that
removals should cease.
90
John Chaloner exceeded his authority by creating a magazine he
knew would be critical of the British and Allied authorities, because he believed that a free
87
British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.2, 13 Oct. 1945
Howard, Otherwise Occupied, p300
89
DSA 1381, letter from Chaloner to Ormond, 31 Oct. 1946
90
John E. Farquharson, ‘Governed or Exploited? The British Acquisition of German Technology, 1945-48’, Journal
of Contemporary History, Vol.32, No.1, (1997), p40
88
210
press should be popular, easy to read and independent of the government. Remarkably, with
the help of two Jewish staff sergeants and a team of talented German editors and journalists,
he succeeded.
Howard and Chaloner started their work in Germany believing that what they were doing was
consistent with overall British objectives, but by the time they left, this was no longer the
case. And, in both cases, despite successful careers after the war, their sense of injustice,
that their efforts and achievements have never been fully recognised, remained for the rest
of their lives.
Michael Howard: The story of T-Force
Michael Howard had been offered a place at Cambridge University and hoped for the
shortest possible stay in Germany before his demobilisation.
91
At first he expected to return
home in October 1946, after a stay of no more than six months, but things turned out better
92
than he had imagined with his appointment as Intelligence Officer for No 1 T-Force.
In
addition to being pleased at finding a responsible job, he believed he was doing something
to help his country. On 10 May 1946 he wrote home that:
This is the only unit in Germany which is not a liability to the taxpayer in that the
consequences of the work have a considerable and direct bearing on our economic
recovery. This does help one feel that one is doing a good job of work.
93
Having just missed active service, a desire to serve his country may have been more
94
important for him than for those who fought in the war.
Over sixty years later, concerned to
refute the charge by a Guardian journalist that T-Force used ‘Gestapo methods’ and was
engaged in the ‘looting of German industry’,
95
he wrote that he and his colleagues took
satisfaction in the knowledge that:
91
IWM SA, Howard
Howard, Otherwise Occupied, p45
Ibid, p90
94
John Bayley, a young officer in the same T-Force unit as Michael Howard, later Warton Professor of English at
Oxford University and married to Iris Murdoch, viewed their work very differently. In a novel based on his time in
Germany, Bayley portrayed their work as insignificant and the country, Germany, as almost unreal, in the interlude
between war and demobilisation. See John Bayley, In Another Country, (London: Constable & Co, 1955), pp13-14.
95
Iain Cobain, ‘How T-Force abducted Germany's best brains for Britain’, the Guardian, 29 Aug. 2007
92
93
211
There was a tangible benefit to be derived for the economic state of the nation from our
main and unique role: the evacuation by T-Force of machinery, documents and scientists
from the German military/industrial complex.’
96
Howard certainly worked hard. In May 1946 he wrote home that: ‘The pressure of work is
unparalleled’, he was ‘evacuating’ 150 tons of machinery and ‘removing to the U.K.’ on
average 5 German scientists a week.
97
In December the workload increased again, following
a false alarm that their activities would cease at the end of the year. He wrote home to say
that: ‘The flap is now off, but we still have some £5,000,000 worth of machinery or 6.5
thousand tons to move—so my job isn’t folding in on me at any rate.’
98
Later he could not
recall where the figure of £5 million came from, but his letters and memoirs show that his
perception of the value of reparations obtained by Britain from Germany was very different
from figures quoted in official sources.
According to Sean Longden’s history of T-Force, UK official receipts for reparations from
Germany totalled just over £30 million.
his biography of Ernest Bevin.
100
99
Alan Bullock quoted a similar figure of £29 million in
Howard believed these figures were misleading and
suggested in his later memoir that the actual figures were many times higher. In December
1946 he wrote to his parents that he had seen a ‘confidential document’ in which ‘the value
of T-Force to the country in the last year was given as not less than £100,000,000’
101
and
referred to an article in the Daily Express of 9 October 1946, which stated that:
A British Government authority agreed with me yesterday that to put the nominal value of
our probe into German trade secrets at less than £100,000,000 would be niggardly.
102
Howard also claimed later that an internal report compiled in 1949 by staff who had worked
for T-Force proposed the extraordinary figure of £2 billion as the total value of T-Force to the
British economy.
103
This report has not survived, but it is likely that it placed a high value on
intangibles, such as documents, patents and technical knowledge transmitted by German
scientists recruited to work in Britain.
96
Howard, Otherwise Occupied, pp92-3
Ibid, pp97-8
98
Ibid, pp192-3
99
Longden, T-Force, p322
100
Alan Bullock, Ernest Bevin: Foreign Secretary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), p602. First published by
William Heinemann Ltd, 1983
101
Howard, Otherwise Occupied, p200
102
‘Smith and the secrets of Schmidt’, Daily Express, 9 Oct. 1946, p4
103
Howard, Otherwise Occupied, p205
97
212
At the end of 1946 the Board of Trade were still keen to publicise their achievements in
extracting benefits for British industry from German scientific and industrial expertise,
104
but
other factors had already started to work in the opposite direction, making it in the interests
of the government to under-state, and possibly conceal, the full value of reparations obtained
from Germany. Instead of being an asset that could be exploited for reparations, the British
Zone proved to be an economic liability, requiring financial support estimated in the April
1946 budget at £80 million for the 1946-47 financial year.
105
Despite attempts to increase
industrial production and coal exports, there was no prospect of the zone moving to financial
surplus for several years. Hence it was not in Britain’s economic interests to extract
reparations or remove equipment, which might damage the economy of the zone still further
and increase the level of support required. Policy makers and officials such as Howard had
to perform a delicate balancing act, extracting what they could to benefit British economic
and commercial interests, while not adversely affecting economic recovery in Germany.
According to the Potsdam Agreement, the Soviet Union was entitled to 25% of the total value
of reparations from the Western Zones,
106
and following the formation of IARA, the Inter-
Allied Reparations Agency, in January 1946, Britain was also obliged to account for and
share reparations with 17 other Western Allies.
107
The British were therefore paying all the
costs of occupation in their zone, while having to share with their Allies any economic benefit
gained from exploiting it for reparations. At the same time, they were trying to persuade the
US to pay a greater share of the costs, mainly food imports.
108
It was therefore in their
interest to under-report the value they booked on their own account, to avoid prejudicing
negotiations with the Soviet Union and Western European Allies on how reparations from
Germany were shared,
109
and with the US on the costs of supporting the British Zone.
104
Industrialists were encouraged to make use of ‘Germany’s war-time advances in science and heavy industry’ at
an exhibition, organised by the Board of Trade, which opened in London on 9 Dec. 1946 and toured the country.
See ‘German Advances in Science’, The Times, 10 Dec. 1946, p2.
105
Hugh Dalton, High Tide and After (London: Frederick Muller Ltd, 1962), pp112-113
106
Protocol of the Proceedings of the Berlin (Potsdam) Conference 1 Aug. 1945, Section III, clauses 4a and 4b.
[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/truman/psources/ps_potsdam.html accessed 17 May 2010]
107
Farquharson, ‘Governed or Exploited?’, p25
108
Balfour and Mair, Four Power Control, p139; Robert Carden, ‘Before Bizonia: Britain’s economic dilemma in
Germany 1945-6’, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol.14, (1979), pp535-555. An agreement between the UK and
US on sharing costs in the ‘Bizone’ equally was signed on 2 Dec. 1946. A revised agreement, which gave the US
greater economic control in return for paying a higher share of the costs, was agreed in Dec. 1947.
109
Farquharson, ‘Governed or Exploited?’, p32, p34, p41, provided various examples of alleged errors in British
reparations accounts and practices, such as IARA expressing grave concerns on unaccounted removals, attacks in
Pravda on the British policy of lodging German patents in London, and incorrect ‘fictitious’ figures given by the
British government to the USSR at the Spring 1947 Council of Foreign Ministers.
213
For Michael Howard, the practical effect of these shifts in policy was that he had to obtain
agreement from his colleagues in the Control Commission Economics Division before items
could be ‘evacuated’ to England. He described with evident satisfaction one occasion when
he, a junior Captain, was able to over-rule a full Colonel working for the Control Commission
and remove some high grade alloy tanks, which had been used for fuel for V2 rockets, but
which the German factory and the Control Commission said were now required for the
110
storage of milk.
On other occasions his objectives became as much to deprive the
Russians of material as to secure it for the British.
111
As the activities of T-Force were wound down, he wrote to his parents that, despite his
dislike of the new policy, he remained committed to the job. His use of military metaphors
suggests that, having just missed active service, he was still trying to make a personal
contribution to the war effort:
The routine part of my work has for all practical purposes ceased. I still have one or two
violent rearguard actions to fight: T-Force has been my hobby as much as my job, and
there are several battles going on which I should be very sorry to see lost. We have been
forced by the change of policy to come out with our hands up in a lot of cases, and I don’t
like it. About every third day I put up a very strong protest, and one of these days I am
going to be jumped on.
112
Although official policy had changed, he continued fighting his personal battle to achieve the
original goal of securing material and equipment to assist Britain’s economic recovery,
though without the support of his own HQ, let alone that of other parts of the Control
Commission responsible for promoting economic recovery in Germany. He later quoted what
he described as the ‘rather broken-backed’ reply he received from his superior following an
attempt to enlist his support:
You can see the trend of high policy in Germany & it is, clearly, at any cost to put Germany
back to work so that we can be repaid some of our current expenses—the future can
apparently look after itself. In this light T-Force activities in the document & equipment field
are obviously a hindrance & they must be terminated willy-nilly at the earliest
113
opportunity.
110
IWM SA, Howard
Ibid
Howard, Otherwise Occupied, p300
113
Howard, Otherwise Occupied, p301
111
112
214
Michael Howard left Germany in December 1947, to take up his place at Cambridge. A
sense that his and his colleagues’ efforts and achievements have never been fully
recognised has stayed with him for the rest of his life.
114
John Chaloner: The English army officer who created Der Spiegel
When John Chaloner died in February 2007, his obituary in The Times described him as a
‘Distributor of foreign journals who, with Der Spiegel, reinstated press freedom in
Germany.’
115
However, although he had the original idea, created the first dummy and took
the decision to go ahead and print the first issue of Diese Woche, the precursor of Der
Spiegel, he had little involvement with the day-to day running of the magazine, which he left
to his two German-speaking Jewish staff sergeants and team of German editors and
journalists. Nevertheless, his role in creating Der Spiegel was to overshadow his
achievements in later life, resulting in a sense of pride and achievement on the one hand
but, on the other, lasting resentment at being officially reprimanded and losing his post, for
initiating what turned out to be a great success.
116
The decision to create the magazine was taken entirely on his own initiative, at a time when
official British policy had already changed from direct to indirect control; from establishing
new publications, to transferring ownership and management to approved German
licensees.
117
Ironically, this action by an individual officer, out of step with official policy, was
to prove more influential for the future of the press in West Germany than any other action
the British took in the field of printed media. The circulation of Der Spiegel rose from 50,000
copies per week in early 1947 to 110,000 in 1951 and 811,000 in 1966, far higher than other
political weekly magazines.
118
By the end of the 1950s, the distinctive style of Der Spiegel
119
was adopted as a model by much of the German press.
In 1962 in what has become
known as the ‘Spiegel Affair’, the German Chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, tried to close the
114
Howard cooperated with Sean Longden in his history of T-Force published in 2009. He reviewed it for the Royal
United Services Institute journal and praised it for being endowed with ‘a lively immediacy’ but considered it a
shame that Longden did not hazard a view as to the true value of the material, both tangible and intangible
‘evacuated’ by himself and his colleagues. He ended the review by asking, rhetorically, if the history of T-Force was
‘the last great untold story.’ See Michael Howard, ‘Review of Sean Longden, T-Force: the Race for Nazi War
Secrets 1945’, RUSI Journal, (December 2008), pp108-110
115
John Chaloner Obituary, The Times, 16 Feb. 2007.
116
Joan Woodward, written answers to questions
117
FO 1056/27, memorandum from PR/ISC group, on ‘Information Services in Germany’, 12 April 1946
118
Hodenberg, Konsens und Krise, p90
119
Ibid, pp219-225
215
publication, after it revealed details of a NATO manoeuvre. The attempt failed after
widespread protests. The ‘affair’ led to the resignation of the Defence Minister, Franz Josef
Strauss, and has been regarded as one of the first major tests of post-war German
democracy.
120
John Chaloner’s involvement with the magazine was short, lasting no more than eight or
nine months. In April 1946, while based in Osnabrück, he and two German secretaries put
together a dummy from translations of articles and pictures from various newspapers and
magazines obtained from England. At some point over the next three or four months,
Chaloner took the dummy to Military Government Public Relations and Information Services
Control (PR/ISC) headquarters and received authorisation to go ahead.
121
He persuaded
one of his staff sergeants, Harry Bohrer, a German-speaking Jewish exile from Prague, who
had no previous experience of journalism, to act as editor-in-chief. He appointed another
staff sergeant, Henry Ormond, also a Jewish exile, as business manager and work started in
earnest in October.
122
Chaloner and Bohrer recruited a team of German journalists, including
the future editor and publisher, Rudolf Augstein, whom Chaloner had employed some
months earlier to work on the daily newspaper, the Hannoverschen Nachrichtenblatt.
123
They
shared the same birthday; Augstein was exactly one year older than Chaloner.
Preparations for launch went ahead at breakneck speed. Paper, office equipment, supplies
and transport were a constant problem. Newsprint for the first three issues was provided
direct from the UK, an extraordinary achievement given the drastic paper rationing in force in
both Britain and Germany.
124
Two pre-production dummy issues were produced, dated 25
October and 1 November. Chaloner wrote to Ormond to congratulate him and the staff:
I know myself that this business of producing a magazine means not just an exciting new
idea but real hard work, patience, a keenness that must not flag and a willingness to go on
learning; all things that cannot be gained without sweat, blood and some tears. The fact that
you have started from scratch and have always to compete against to-day’s appalling
shortages, doubles the meaning of your success.
120
125
Herbert, ‘Liberalisierung als Lernprozeß’, p29; Dirk Moses, German Intellectuals and the Nazi Past (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp172ff
121
Brawand, Der Spiegel - ein Besatzungskind, p65, pp95-6
122
Ibid, p66, p98
123
Brawand, Der Spiegel - ein Besatzungskind, p31, p101
124
DSA 1381, letter and report initialled ‘O’ to ‘Press Chief’, 2 Nov. 1946 and 14 Dec. 1946
125
DSA 1381, letter from Chaloner to Ormond, 31 Oct. 1946
216
As this message shows, the mechanics of production and availability of supplies offered
tremendous challenges. Echoing Churchill’s wartime exhortations, Chaloner wrote that they
could not succeed without ‘sweat, blood and some tears.’ He was interested in the layout
and appearance of the magazine, the typeface and style of writing and in motivating his staff,
but appeared to have little interest in the content, leaving this to Harry Bohrer and his team
of German journalists.
Although published by a British Military Government unit, the paper did not set out to
represent or promote British views. In an interview with Der Spiegel in 2006, in response to a
question asking why he decided to create the magazine, Chaloner explained that, above all,
he wanted to establish a paper that was independent of the government:
It was to strongly develop the independence of the German press, so that there could be no
question of it following the Hitler pattern, that it was somehow a government-owned
126
organisation or publication.
In Chaloner’s view the greatest danger to British interests came, not from a hostile press, but
from hostile governments. If this meant that his magazine published articles that were critical
of the British and Allied authorities, then so be it. As he said in the interview: ‘that seemed to
me the natural role of a so-called free press.’
127
His superiors, however, did not entirely share his idealistic, if naïve, view of a free and
independent press. The first issue of the magazine, then called Diese Woche (This Week),
appeared on 16 November 1946, without, it appears, formal authorisation to go ahead with
printing or putting copies on sale. According to one story, shortly before it was due to go to
press, Chaloner received a letter stating that certain conditions had to be met. He told his
secretary, ‘I have not read this letter’ and denied ever having received it.
128
In another
account, his two staff sergeants were in his office when he received an order to stop the
printing. He told them to swear the telegram had arrived after he left the office.
129
The magazine included a number of stories which were critical of the British authorities and
their Soviet former allies. One article described how a German refugee from the Soviet Zone
126
DSA, interview with John Chaloner, 2 Nov. 2006
Ibid
Brawand, Der Spiegel - ein Besatzungskind, p165
129
Woodward, Written answers to questions
127
128
217
had escaped from a train, full of German scientists and technicians being taken by force to
Russia.
130
A second described how soldiers in the Second Polish Corps in Italy, under the
command of General Anders, did not wish to return home, quoting General Anders telling a
press conference that many who had already done so had been transported across the
Urals, to a large ‘concentration camp’ in Siberia.
131
According to Brawand’s history of Der
Spiegel, Augstein was summoned by the British authorities to answer accusations that such
articles provided ammunition to unrepentant Nazis. He replied that he and his colleagues
were doing no more than repeating stories which had already appeared in British
publications, widely available in Germany and held up to them as models for their own
132
work.
Chaloner was summoned a few days later to answer accusations of having ‘collaborated
with the enemy’ through giving excess freedom to, and working too closely with, Augstein
and the other German journalists.
133
On 29 November 1946, C.J.S. Sprigge, Chief of the
British Public Relations and Information Services Control division (PR/ISC), confirmed the
decisions he and his senior colleagues had reached in the case. Chaloner was to be officially
reproved for exceeding his responsibilities in going to press without authorisation and should
have ‘nothing whatever to do with the paper from this moment.’
134
What happened next is uncertain. Chaloner remained in post at least until the end of
December,
135
though he appears to have had no further involvement with the magazine.
Four further issues of Diese Woche appeared, on 30 November, 7 and 14 December, and a
Christmas double issue on 21 December. The staff sergeants, Harry Bohrer and Henry
130
‘Auch ein Ostflüchtling: Er wollte nicht nach Rußland’, Diese Woche, No.1, 16 Nov. 1946, p4 (Another refugee
from the East: he didn’t want to go to Russia)
131
‘…und wohin mit den Polen?’ Diese Woche, No.1, 16 Nov. 1946, p10
132
Brawand, Der Spiegel - ein Besatzungskind, pp131-2. Augstein was correct in his claim. A similar article on the
‘Future of the Problem Poles’ appeared in the British magazine News Review, 7 Nov. 1946, 9 days before the first
issue of Diese Woche. Augstein used same argument when criticised later, in June 1947, by the British censor for
publishing a cartoon of Stalin. See DSA 1381, letter from ‘Censorship officer, for Senior PR/ISC officer, Land
Niedersachsen’ to ‘The Editor, Der Spiegel’, 30 June 1947 and reply from Augstein to Deneke, 30 June 1947.
133
Brawand, Der Spiegel - ein Besatzungskind, pp156-8
134
FO 1056/16 folio 195, letter from Sprigge to Bayer, 29 Nov. 1946 and folio 195A, letter from Sprigge to Gibson,
29 Nov. 1946
135
DSA, letter from Chaloner to 8 papers, including Diese Woche, 16 Dec. 1946, concerning availability of paper
218
Ormond remained in post
appear.
136
and articles critical of the British and other Allies continued to
137
Sometime between 11 and 13 December, Chaloner was summoned again to meet Brigadier
Gibson, deputy head of PR/ISC, to explain why another proposed magazine, Das Andere
Deutschland [‘The Other Germany’], had still not been published, due to a shortage of paper,
ten months after Gibson had given instructions to go ahead.
138
According to Brawand,
Chaloner had diverted the newsprint intended for Das Andere Deutschland to Diese
Woche.
139
In a letter to Lt. Col. Bayer, Chaloner’s immediate superior, Gibson wrote that the
whole thing was ‘very mysterious’ and he had not quite got to the bottom of it, but they were
‘under some pressure to publish [Das Andere Deutschland] from personages in England’,
presumably influential German émigrés, who had long been keen to demonstrate that there
was an ‘other Germany’ different from that of Hitler and the Nazis.
140
Chaloner later claimed that, as long as he remained in Germany, he was able to protect his
protégés, prevent the magazine from being closed and persuade his British colleagues that
the licence should be issued to Augstein.
141
I have not been able to verify these claims, but it
appears that the magazine had developed a momentum, which would have made it difficult
to close without incurring further criticism. Fifteen thousand copies of the first issue of Diese
Woche were printed and some were soon re-sold on the black market at fifteen times the
cover price of one mark.
142
On 9 December Ormond reported that 44,900 copies had been
ordered from bookshops and wholesale firms,
143
far more than they were able to supply. A
few days later, on 14 December, he reported that ‘numerous applications for subscriptions
were coming in’, from the whole of Germany including the US and Russian Zones, and the
number of orders had increased further to 56,800.
136
144
In January 1947, despite the severe
DSA 1381
E.g. ‘Geistiger Export Deutschlands’, Diese Woche, No.5, 21 Dec. 1946. The article criticised the work done by
Michael Howard and his colleagues in T-Force, (without mentioning the unit by name).
138
FO 1056/37, letter from Gibson to Bayer, 13 Dec. 1946
139
Brawand, Der Spiegel - ein Besatzungskind, p163
140
FO 1056/37, letters from Bayer to Gibson, 11 Dec., and from Gibson to Bayer, 13 Dec. 1946
141
DSA, Interview with John Chaloner, 2 Nov. 2006
142
Brawand, Der Spiegel - ein Besatzungskind, p122. The figure of 15,000 was reported in FO 1056/37, list of
licensed newspapers and periodicals in the British Zone, 9 Dec.1946.
143
DSA 1381, report initialled ‘O’ to Press Chief, 9 Dec. 1946
144
DSA 1381, report initialled ‘O’ to Press Chief, 14 Dec. 1946
137
219
paper shortages, Ormond successfully argued for an increase in circulation to 50,000
copies
145
by appealing to Anglo-American rivalry.
146
At some point, probably towards the end of December, a decision was taken to transfer
ownership and issue a preliminary licence to Augstein. This required a change in name and
the first issue of Der Spiegel appeared on 4 January 1947.
147
A full licence was not issued to
Augstein and two colleagues until six months later, in July 1947,
148
after the British
authorities had tried and failed to find at least one alternative German licensee.
149
The magazine survived without Chaloner, who left Hanover in early 1947 and worked briefly
as a PR adviser to Montgomery, before being demobilised and returning home.
150
Bohrer
and Ormond ceased their involvement with the publication a little later, after the grant of a full
licence in July 1947.
151
With Augstein as licence holder and editor, Der Spiegel continued to
criticise the British and other Allies. Despite some financial difficulties and attempts by the
British authorities to impose a temporary ban on publication in August 1948 and August
1950,
152
it emerged in the 1950s as a highly successful, established and influential part of
the German media.
Howard’s and Chaloner’s stories illustrate some of the contradictions of the occupation at its
lower levels. The lack of established institutional structures and clear lines of control led to
implementation diverging from official policies, which were changing rapidly. Some of the
original aims of the occupation, such as Howard’s desire to obtain reparations to benefit the
British post-war economy, were superseded by concerns over the cost of the occupation and
145
FO 1056/37, monthly lists of licensed newspapers and periodicals in the British Zone. The circulation figures for
Diese Woche and (from 4 Jan 1946) Der Spiegel were stated as 15,000 in the 9 Dec. and 9 Jan. lists, and 50,000 in
the 9 Feb. List.
146
DSA 1381, memo initialled ‘O’ to ‘Press Chief’, 25 Jan. 1947, ‘The Americans seem to be amazed that the British
have, for once, put them in the shade, in the newspaper world.’
147
DSA 1381, report initialled ‘O’ to ‘Press Chief’, 31 Dec. 1946. See also letter in the same file from Michael
Balfour, head of ISC branch, to Brawand, 18 Jan. 1987, in which Balfour claimed he had second thoughts the day
after he signed the licence for Der Spiegel, which suggests that this was done at short notice, a few days before the
magazine was published under its new name on 4 Jan. 1947.
148
After 12 July 1947, the ‘Impressum’ at the back of the magazine changed, from stating it was published with
‘preliminary authorisation’: ‘Herausgegeben von Rudolf Augstein, (mit vorläufiger PR/ISC Genehmigung 600/PR
vom 1 Januar 1947)’, to the more formal: ‘Veröffentlicht unter Zulassung Nr. 123 der Militär-Regierung’. The full
licence issued in July 1947 is held at DSA, but no copies of the preliminary licence have survived.
149
Brawand, Der Spiegel - ein Besatzungskind, pp188-89
150
John Chaloner Obituary, The Times, 16 Feb. 2007. It is not clear exactly when Chaloner left Hanover or how long
he worked for Montgomery. According to one file he was due to leave the Control Commission at the end of 1946,
which is when he would have been due for demobilisation (FO 1056/16, letter from Sprigge to Gibson, 19
Nov.1946). He had left Germany by July 1947, as Bohrer and Ormond, but not Chaloner, attended a party on 11
July 1947 to celebrate the grant of the full licence.
151
DSA 1382.Bohrer was appointed London representative of Der Spiegel after leaving Germany in July 1947.
Ormond may have remained involved a little longer.
152
For criticising Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands in August 1948, and reprinting a banned communist poster
in 1950. See FO 1049/1364; FO 1056/318.
220
the acceleration of the process of devolution of power to Germans. Chaloner’s idealistic aim
of promoting a free press, independent of government, succeeded in the case of Der Spiegel
as much through the efforts of his two Jewish staff sergeants and team of young German
journalists, as through his own work. Despite instructing Chaloner to cease all involvement
with the publication, the British authorities in Germany tolerated the magazine, once it was
licensed to Augstein, and allowed it to survive.
153
Individual British officials, such as Howard, Chaloner, and most of the others considered in
this chapter, combined their daily work implementing official policies, as they understood
them, to the best of their ability, with pragmatic concerns regarding their personal futures.
After the promulgation of Ordnance no. 57 at the end of 1947, they had limited scope to
achieve structural change within Germany, as significant administrative powers were
devolved to the Länder, in health, education and local government. From early 1947
onwards, the establishment of good personal relations with Germans was seen by those at
the top as a means of preserving British influence.
154
The number of Control Commission
staff reduced rapidly from a peak of 25,740 in January 1947,
155
but for those who remained,
personal reconciliation became an occupation objective in its own right. The following section
discusses different kinds of engagement between British and Germans, from cooperation at
work to friendships, sex and marriage.
7.4
Getting to know the Germans
‘My strongest memories really are just getting to know the Germans … and associating
with them. Because I wasn’t a bit anti-German in any shape or form.
I was brought up not to be anti-anything really.’
153
156
It could be argued that the British were more tolerant of press criticism than their US counterparts. Der Ruf, a
magazine intended as the voice of the ‘younger generation’, was closed by US authorities in April 1947. Heinz
Norden, the editor of Heute, an illustrated magazine founded by US information control staff, was sacked in 1947 for
alleged communist sympathies. See Alan Bance (ed.), The Cultural Legacy of the British Occupation in Germany
(Stuttgart: Verlag Hans-Dieter Heinz, Akademischer Verlag Stuttgart, 1997), p140
154
See above pp179-184
155
Turner, Reconstruction in Post-War Germany, p367. Control Commission staff numbers reduced to 18,363 in
Jan. 1948, 11,717 in Jan. 1949 and 7,416 in Jan. 1950.
156
IWM SA, Thexton
221
All four of the young officers discussed in detail, and seventeen of the twenty-one IWM
Sound Archive interviewees, referred to their impressions of the local population and to
meeting Germans in various contexts. Most described their relations with Germans as
‘remarkably friendly.’
157
Although the British requisitioned houses and buildings, sometimes
placed them under armed guard and erected barbed wire fences around them, reserved
hotels and theatres in many cities exclusively for their own use, ate in the mess, shopped in
the NAAFI and arranged segregated film performances that excluded the local population,
there was a high degree of contact between occupiers and occupied. Despite occasional
comments, such as that of Noel Annan in Berlin, who spoke of the British as ‘the new lords
of creation, [who] swept by in our cars bound for some snug mess remote from hunger and
cold’,
158
this was not an occupation in which the victors remained isolated from the local
population.
When British soldiers and administrators met individual Germans, they generally found them
cooperative and friendly. Most were women, children or old men who had little if any direct
involvement in the war. Some were clearly victims, having lost their homes, belongings and
families. They came to know and like as individuals some Germans who, while denying they
had ever supported the Nazis, may have been nominal members of the party or one of its
many associated organisations. The attitudes of many British people towards the Germans
remained ambivalent, but despite continued mistrust, the occupation reinforced the
similarities, rather than the differences, between them.
Early attempts by the occupation authorities to regulate personal relationships, through the
ban on any form of fraternisation, including shaking hands or speaking to someone in the
street, proved unenforceable and soon broke down. The ban was relaxed in July and
September 1945, but official restrictions on personal and social relations remained in
place,
159
though these were widely flouted. In some cases, encounters between occupiers
and occupied were short lived matters of convenience or necessity, such as casual
prostitution, black market deals, instructions to subordinates at work, or attending a film,
157
IWM SA, Falle
Noel Annan, Changing Enemies: The Defeat and Regeneration of Germany (London: Harper Collins, 1995),
p148
159
FO 1056/30, circular from Chief Administrative Officer, 10 Jan. 1947, summarising current orders on
fraternisation
158
222
theatre or concert performance. Others developed into longer term relationships, including
marriage and friendships which lasted many years after the end of the occupation.
Singular or plural?
During the war the British had been encouraged to view the German people in the plural,
collectively all alike, most famously by Vansittart:
The German is often a moral creature; the Germans never; and it is the Germans who
count. You will always think of Germans in the plural, if you are wise. That is their
misfortune and their fault.
160
In a study of Anglo-German relations, Anthony Nicholls wrote that ‘when it came to the
practicalities of occupation, the obsession with peculiarities of national character began to
wane quite rapidly,’ and ‘common sense overcame the myths about national character’.
161
The evidence examined for this study, however, suggests that the process of treating people
as individuals, rather than collectively as ‘Germans’, required a conscious effort on both
sides. In particular, reconciliation appeared to be dependent on a shared interest of some
kind, such as working together, living nearby as neighbours, music or literature, or an
attraction to someone of the opposite sex.
Many of the British occupiers came into contact with Germans through their work, and found
they were working with, rather than against, their former enemies. A British naval officer, for
example, who commanded a German minesweeping flotilla felt this was ‘an odd experience’,
as all he had to defend himself was a revolver, which would have been no help had they
attempted to throw him over the side, so he got rid of it. He added:
I have to say this. They work impeccably and are very fine seaman, and I had no problems
of any kind at all. They seemed to accept me. I got on well with them. They were very
correct…. We operated as if it were a British minesweeping flotilla except they were all
Germans. Most incredible.
162
Thexton assumed that good relations at work meant being willing to socialise with his
colleagues outside work, even if this conflicted with official regulations:
160
Robert Vansittart, Black Record (London, Hamish Hamilton, 1941), p18
Anthony J. Nicholls, ‘The German ‘National Character’ in British Perspective’ in Ulrike Jordan (ed.), Conditions of
Surrender, Britons and Germans witness the end of the war (London & New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1997), p37
162
IWM SA, James
161
223
Fundamentally it was illegal more or less. But certainly you found that most people had
some sort of association [with the Germans] … One couldn’t say: “we’re going to have a
Christmas party, you can’t come” if, say, you work with them every day of the week.
163
Many German civilians went out of their way to be friendly with the occupying forces, with
several IWM interviewees commenting that they were favourably disposed to the British, if
only because they were not the Russians.
164
Some British soldiers reciprocated and made a
conscious effort to be civil and polite, sometimes friendly, to the Germans they met at work,
since that was their understanding of normal social behaviour. An RAF ground crew member
in Berlin, for example, when asked about his feelings towards the enemy, described how the
wife of an old man working in his billet suffered from polio and he felt sorry for him, saying
that despite the ‘no fratting’ rules, ‘if you’ve got a person working in your billet you’ve got to
talk to them. How the hell can you get him to do anything if you don’t talk to him?’
165
A
Russian interpreter remarked that relations with the Germans were, on the whole, ‘very good
and very friendly’.
166
A conscientious objector, who worked with ethnic German refugees
from the areas ceded to Poland, when asked about non-fraternisation, said that it did not
affect them. His team’s remit was to regenerate the local German welfare organisations,
such as Evangelische Hilfswerk, Caritas, and the Red Cross, and to feed supplies through
these organisations. They made friends wherever they could, he said, and he made an
enormous number of friends, adding that it was an ‘exhilarating period’ in his life.
167
When Michael Palliser was asked if he had much contact with German people he replied ‘not
much’ in the first year or two after the end of the war, but he was referring to social contacts,
not those made in the course of his work or with neighbours. A dislike of ‘everything
German’, due to their wartime experiences and prejudices, did not prevent him and his
colleagues conducting polite, even friendly, relations with individuals, such as the former
owners of a house they requisitioned for their officers’ mess in Bad Godesberg. The house
was occupied by an aristocratic war widow and her sister, who moved upstairs to the
163
IWM SA, Thexton
IWM SA, Mallabar, Bicknell, Falle, Martin Cosmo Hastings
165
IWM SA, Lucas
166
IWM SA, Bicknell
167
IWM SA, Harland
164
224
servants’ quarters.
168
On one occasion she offered to travel to Cologne to buy a ‘spare part’
for them and came back in despair, quite unaware of how badly damaged the city was:
She had had no idea of what had happened to Cologne, although she was living in Bad
Godesberg which is, what, fifteen miles or something. That seemed to me quite
extraordinary. It showed they had lived an extremely restricted life, if you like, during the
war in Germany. It was an extraordinary thing. Of course she hadn’t found the spare part
because whichever shops she tried to go to had all been destroyed. She was very shocked
by it. She was a nice person.
169
Some of the IWM interviewees were surprised at the lack of resistance. A denazification
officer said that part of his job was to keep an eye on any sign of opposition, but there was
none, and no trace of the Nazi ‘werewolf’ movement they had anticipated. He thought the
Germans were ‘just so weary of the whole business.’
170
An NCO in Berlin commented that it
was strange meeting German civilians. He had been led to believe that resistance would
spring up very quickly, but it never happened, adding: ‘Some of the Germans treated us as if
we were the victorious army and they were pleased to see us.’
171
His main spare time
activity was attending the State Opera, where every Sunday there were performances by the
major German orchestras or the ballet. He saw the film Henry V for the first time with
German subtitles in a German cinema: ‘It was as relaxed as that’.
172
Many of the British occupiers employed German servants, at home or in the officers’ mess or
clubs, or encountered German tradespeople when they needed goods or services. A
woman, in Germany with her husband, revealed that her feelings were mixed towards the
Germans who worked for them. They were ‘very nice to German people’ she said:
We gave them little jobs. You went to the hairdressers and you paid them the money you
had to pay them, and you gave them some cigarettes, which were worth a lot.
173
But she implied that she thought the Germans were not suitably grateful. When asked if
Germans had a hard time at the end of the war, she agreed, but added defensively that the
British ‘had a hard time too’ and still shared what they had with the Germans. She repeated
168
IWM SA, Palliser
Ibid
170
IWM SA, Ralph Frederick Dye
171
IWM SA, Mallabar
172
Ibid
173
IWM SA, Norman
169
225
the point, as if she felt it was in doubt and needed to be emphasised: ‘I think we were all very
nice to the people who worked for us.’
174
Friends and lovers
In some cases, including three of the four young officers considered in this study,
175
relationships between British and Germans developed further, from casual acquaintances, or
socialising with neighbours or colleagues at work, to lasting friendships, sexual partnerships,
or marriage. Personal relationships between British men and German women were
widespread, though the IWM interviewees were reluctant to talk in detail about personal and
intimate matters, admitting their own relationships with reluctance or apologies. They
presented their experiences as in keeping with generally accepted morality and standards of
behaviour, placing their relationships with German women in the context of going out with
friends, sightseeing, parties, the cinema, getting to know people at work, meeting the family,
or the prospect of marriage. Though anxious to say that the Germans they met were not
Nazi supporters, they expressed no sense of disapproval of social or sexual relationships
with the defeated enemy.
Among the more senior commissioned officers the position may have been different. When
Jan Thexton asked his commanding officer for his permission to marry (as required by the
official regulations), the officer tried to dissuade him, saying, ‘Look I’d much sooner you
married a wog, than marry a German,’
176
(thereby revealing that his prejudices were not
confined to the Germans). On the other hand, an NCO in Berlin said that ‘the officers were
just the same as the other ranks regarding fraternisation’
177
and some IWM interviewees
described the hypocrisy of more senior officers, who outwardly disapproved of their men’s
fraternisation, but had German girlfriends. Jan Thexton recalled accompanying an
intelligence officer who ‘used to go out at night and tap into all the telephone calls’, including
‘very senior officers ringing up their popsies and so on, which was totally forbidden at the
178
time.’
174
Ibid
Chaloner described his relationship with a woman he called ‘Heidi’ in his semi-autobiographical novel
Occupational Hazard. Howard’s and Thexton’s relationships are discussed further below.
176
IWM SA, Thexton
177
IWM SA, Travett
178
IWM SA, Thexton
175
226
According to Michael Howard, all the men and NCOs in his Intelligence Section ‘settled in’
with German girls and at least two of them eventually married their girlfriends, but he claimed
that ‘it was different for officers’, though attitudes varied and there were exceptions. Two
officers in his unit, from a different regiment, had German girlfriends and no one raised any
formal objections. Their colleagues in the mess may have frowned on it, but ‘not to the extent
of being disagreeable about it.’ As regards any ‘serious entanglement’ with the opposite sex,
all ‘had ambitions’ of education or future careers, which would have made it ‘extremely
foolish’ to ‘acquire a German bride’, so none thought of this as a possibility.
179
In his later memoir, Howard gave a frank account of his relationship with the daughter of the
local doctor, which indicates that perhaps it was not so different for officers. The story
combines elements of a holiday romance, in a strange but generally friendly country, with
changing perceptions of the former enemy. The doctor owned the house in which Howard
and other officers were billeted. He and his family had to move out, but he was allowed to
keep three consulting rooms on the ground floor so he could continue his practice, and his
family retained use of the garden. Howard wrote to his mother in July 1946:
One of the Mess gardens has been most beautifully kept and you can lie there and forget
the rest of Germany. The family who used to live in the house have kept it up to scratch: it
is the doctor’s house—he is a nice fellow and interesting to talk to … The younger daughter
aged 19 also would like to be a doctor, she doesn’t think she will ever qualify as she is not
good enough at the subjects that matter. I quite often meet them in the garden and natter to
180
them, and I have been asked round to feed with them: that I had to refuse.
This letter must, as he said: ‘have rung alarm bells in my mother's mind; the very idea that I
might have social rather than, say, master/slave relations with German civilians must have
set them off, not to mention the suspicion that social might easily develop into sexual
relations, as indeed they might.’
181
A month later he wrote to his mother to reassure her that
she had nothing to worry about, while at the same time explaining that he had become bored
with the all-male company and conversation in the officers’ mess and found he had more in
179
IWM SA, Howard
Howard, Otherwise Occupied, p133
181
Ibid, p148
180
227
common with ‘a pleasant and intelligent German than a stupid and uncongenial
Englishman’.
182
The relationship continued and a few months later, in January 1947, Howard sent his
parents photos, taken with a camera he had acquired in Germany. In the accompanying
letter, as he commented later, he was ‘at pains to reassure my parents that there was no
romantic attachment, when it must have been plain to them that one was developing
nevertheless’.
183
In his later memoir he emphasised the practical and social constraints upon
them, such as his family’s assumptions regarding acceptable behaviour within their social
class, the need to achieve financial security before marriage, the ‘unacceptable stigma in the
society’ in which his family moved of marrying a German, that ‘pregnancy would mean
marriage’ and ‘at once be interpreted as a naked attempt at entrapment.’
wrote, ‘in the grip of an entirely uncontrollable passion.’
184
We were not, he
185
Soon after this exchange of letters, a new colonel was appointed to command the unit. As he
brought his wife and family with him to Germany, he needed a larger house and decided to
take the doctor’s house for himself, ejecting the British officers and the doctor from his
consulting rooms. Michael Howard’s sympathies were now fully on the side of the German
doctor and his family against his own colonel, whose behaviour he considered morally
unacceptable. As he explained to his mother, the colonel was:
… quite incapable of understanding that in a country where there are only 230,000 houses
for 6 million inhabitants, it literally is morally wrong for two people to occupy a 32 room
house … The Colonel was so childish as to ask me to try and prove that the doctor had
been an ardent Nazi. When I told him that I knew the old boy quite well, and was quite
certain that he had not been one, he was a bit taken aback … The stupidity of it – no
wonder the people get a bad impression of us.
186
The matter spread to involve local politicians and trade unions in the town and opposition to
the requisition antagonised relations between British and Germans, which had already
started to deteriorate due to local protests at the continued low level of food rations. The
dispute was eventually resolved by designating the house as offices for the Intelligence
182
Ibid, p147
Ibid, p211
184
Ibid, pp229-30
185
Ibid
186
Ibid, p262
183
228
Section, rather than living quarters, allowing the doctor to keep his consulting rooms, while
the colonel found another house in a town eighteen miles away. This was, according to
Howard, ‘a blessing in disguise.’
187
His judgement on the colonel, whom he considered had
‘learnt to dispense entirely with a moral sense of any sort’, was devastating:
Trying to explain to him why something is ‘right’, or ‘wrong’ instead of ‘a good thing’ or ‘a
bad thing’ is like trying to explain the colour of a sunset to a man who has been blind for
fifteen years, and isn’t interested in sunsets.
188
Personal relationships in occupied Germany between male occupiers and female occupied
are often discussed in physical terms, as prostitution and casual sex, liaisons and marriages
of convenience, or, occasionally, as love at first sight followed by marriage. Howard’s story
shows the importance of another dimension: that of social constraints, moral judgements and
a code of accepted behaviour, understood by both sides. Soon after his arrival he wrote to
his parents that the destruction of German cities was ‘much as it ought to be’ and no more
than the Germans deserved.
189
A year later, his personal relationship with, and sympathy for,
a German family, led to his perception that it was not the defeated Germans, but the British
colonel who breached the moral code.
Margret, the doctor’s daughter, gained a place to read medicine at the University of Bonn
and moved there in early October 1947. Howard went to visit her, before he left Germany in
December, to take up his own university place at Cambridge:
It was unthinkable that I should leave Germany without saying goodbye to Margret in
person, now in Bonn. At this stage I needed no pretext, fictitious or otherwise, to make the
trip … There was much sighing, some tears, many promises, promises to write, promises to
meet again. We knew that neither of us would be deflected from our immediate aims, she to
qualify as a doctor and I to get my degree and find financial independence. But there was
still the prospect that I might spend a semester at the university in Bonn in the New Year,
which we both knew would pose a serious threat to our standing as demi-vierges. In the
event, we were to correspond, often and passionately … We continued writing for most of
two years, by which time, starved of actual face-to-face contact, our correspondence had
assumed a calmer character. It has continued, as between friends, for sixty years.
187
Ibid, p268
Ibid, pp286-7
See above p204
190
Ibid, pp317-8
188
189
229
190
Husbands and wives
Some personal relationships between British men and German women resulted in marriage.
In total around ten thousand ‘war brides’ emigrated from Germany to the UK between 1947
and 1950.
191
These figures were slightly lower than the number of German war brides who
went to the United States, although estimates vary.
193
memoirs
192
Some war brides have published their
which describe extraordinary personal histories, but it is difficult to know how
typical their experiences were. Fourteen war brides were interviewed by Inge Weber-Newth
and Dieter Steinert, as part of a study of German immigration to Britain between 1947 and
1951.
194
In a later article, Weber-Newth presented a generally negative picture of their
experiences, both in Germany and Britain, quoting a German charity, Caritas, that only a
small number were content and stating that the interviews showed that unfavourable
perceptions of their status as war brides ‘remained a burden for many decades.’
195
While acknowledging that ‘the spectrum of relationships was diverse’, Weber-Newth placed
post-war occupation marriages in a context of social and cultural dislocation at the end of the
war, claiming that ‘Allied troops were not generally welcomed … during the first few weeks a
harsh regime was practised and the occupiers took what they saw as their rights as a victor’,
and corruption, sex and prostitution were inevitable in the circumstances.
196
The reasons the
women interviewed for the study gave for marrying were generally practical, such as hope
for improved material conditions, the higher status and better appearance of Allied soldiers,
a desire to have a family and children and a concern that otherwise they might not be able to
marry,
197
given the gender imbalance in post-war Germany.
191
198
Inge Weber-Newth, ‘Bilateral relations: British Soldiers and German Women’ in Louise Ryan & Wendy Webster
(eds.), Gendering Migration: Masculinity, Femininity and Ethnicity in Post-War Britain (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008),
p53; Johannes-Dieter Steinert and Inge Weber-Newth, Labour and Love. Deutsche in Grossbritannien nach dem
Zweiten Weltkrieg (Osnabrück: secolo Verlag, 2000), p7
192
Goedde estimated, based on exit applications to travel to the US, that 14,175 German wives, six husbands and
750 children entered the US between 1947 and June 1950, plus another 1,862 entering the US as fiancés.
Comparable figures for GI brides and grooms emigrating from Britain to the US were 34,944 wives, 53 husbands
and 472 children, and from Japan, 758 wives (Goedde, GIs and Germans, pp100-1)
193
Notably Gerda Erika Baker, Shadow of War (Oxford, Batavia, Sydney: Lion Publishing Ltd, 1990) and Renate
Greenshields, Lucky Girl Goodbye and its Sequel A Bit of Time, (Hawkchurch Devon: Renate Greenshields, 2006)
194
Steinert and Weber-Newth, Labour and Love
195
Weber-Newth, ‘Bilateral relations: British Soldiers and German Women’, p61, p63
196
Ibid, pp55-7
197
Ibid, p62
198
In 1946 there were 7,279,400 more women than men in Germany. In the age group between 20 and 45 there
were 1,482 women for every 1,000 men. Out of every 100 Germans born in 1924, 25, mostly male, were dead or
missing and a further 31 severely mutilated. See Michael Balfour and John Mair, Four Power Control in Germany
and Austria 1945-1946 (Oxford: Survey of International Affairs 1939-1946, Oxford University Press, 1956), p10
230
More recently, Isobel Schropper has conducted similar research among Austrian war brides.
She discovered that the situation was similar in many ways but, despite a generally negative
reaction in Austria to women who associated with British soldiers, significant barriers to
marriage imposed by the British authorities and original expectations not being met when
they arrived in Britain, the eighteen war brides she interviewed generally displayed more
positive attitudes:
Irrespectively of how difficult it was to deal with cultural differences, all the interviewees
expressed pride in having overcome them and in having established their place in the
199
families of their husbands.
Given the similarities in the situation in Germany and Austria and the small samples
considered, it is difficult to generalise from these results and claim that Austrian war brides
were more content in Britain. It is more likely that both studies reflected individual differences
among those interviewed. Some German and Austrian war brides settled in Britain and
remained married for the rest of their lives. Others, unsurprisingly, found it difficult to cope
with cultural differences and unmet expectations and returned home, separated or divorced.
Historical research on German and Austrian war brides has generally been conducted with
wives rather than husbands, either because the research was conducted as part of a wider
study of migration,
200
or because women were more likely to retain links with German or
Austrian religious or cultural organisations, which made it possible to identify them later, but
not husbands in cases where they had separated or divorced. Husbands were often older
than their wives, died earlier and few are still alive, so there is limited scope for further
interviews.
201
However, some conclusions can be drawn from contemporary records. British
men were under very little practical or material pressure to marry.
202
Even if their girlfriends
became pregnant, members of the occupying forces were under no legal obligation to marry
the mother or provide financial support for illegitimate children.
203
It has to be assumed,
therefore, that those who married did so for romantic reasons, to keep the woman they
199
Isabel Schropper, Austrian female migration to Britain, 1945 to 1960 (PhD Diss: London, 2010)
E.g. Steinert and Weber-Newth, Labour and Love
Jan Thexton, whom I interviewed for this study in November 2007, died six months later.
202
Weber-Newth, ‘Bilateral relations: British Soldiers and German Women’, p59
203
FO 371/70845. In 1948 the Foreign Office, with the support of the Minister for Germany, Pakenham, considered
proposals from the Society for the Unmarried Mother and her Child to allow civil claims, for paternity, maintenance
and support for illegitimate children, to be pursued by German mothers in Control Commission courts in Germany.
The proposals were dropped following objections from service chiefs.
200
201
231
loved, because they were encouraged or persuaded to do so by their girlfriends, or because
it was in accordance with their moral and social understanding of correct behaviour, or a
combination of all these reasons.
British men who decided to marry a German woman had to devote a considerable amount of
time and effort before they received permission to do so. In addition to antagonism from
some members of the local population and concerns or explicit disapproval expressed by
parents or other family members on both sides, official regulations at first prohibited and then
strongly discouraged marriage. Despite the relaxation of the non-fraternisation rules,
marriage with ‘ex-enemy aliens’ was forbidden until 31 July 1946, when a government
spokesman announced in the House of Lords that the ban would be relaxed, subject to
certain criteria.
204
Bureaucratic and legal obstacles had still to be overcome before the marriage could take
place. Approval in each case was required from commanding officers. No marriage was
permitted until six months after the date of application, during which time the man was
required to return to the UK on leave, presumably intended as a cooling-off period. In
addition, the prospective wife had to undergo a medical examination and receive a certificate
of good health from a British medical officer, and a certificate of good character signed by
the Oberbürgermeister or other suitable German official.
205
Prospective wives, and in some
cases their families, were subject to security examinations and a ‘list of certain categories of
women considered politically undesirable for marriage’ was compiled by the British
authorities though not openly circulated.
206
Regulations and guidelines, issued by the British
Control Commission for Austria for the administration of marriage policy, specified that it was
‘the duty of the Commanding Officers to try and dissuade members of the forces from
marriage overseas,’ both for security reasons and in their own interest, by making them
aware of cultural differences which could cause difficulties. In addition the regulations
204
FO 1030/174, copy of Hansard Vol.142, No. 126, 31 July 1946
FO 1030/174, ‘The conditions under which British Service men may marry German women in the British Zone of
Germany’
206
Ibid
205
232
specified that the proposed marriage had to be discussed with a religious chaplain, and the
husband had to ensure that suitable accommodation would be available in Britain.
207
Jan Thexton had great difficulty obtaining authorisation from his commander in Germany, a
brigadier, who denied any knowledge of a change in the regulations and whose initial
response has been described above.
208
Thexton went home to enlist the support of his MP,
who agreed to help. On his return to Germany he found a big notice on his desk: ‘Here is
your authority to get married. God help you.’ Having obtained authorisation from the British,
he still had to obtain permission from the German authorities, before he and his wife could
be married in a German registry office. When interviewed in 2007, he said that he had
written an official notice of the correct procedure, which was circulated in the British Zone.
He was told later that ‘three thousand other couples married in that year [1947-8] … based
upon what I’d negotiated with the Germans.’
209
Marriage with a former enemy alien was the ultimate symbol of acceptance and
reconciliation, especially as this automatically meant the spouse acquired British nationality
and the right to live in Britain. Personal relationships, both sexual and non-sexual, between
British men and German women were common and widespread, but marriage was different,
as this implied a long term commitment on both sides. It is worth noting that, for a small but
significant number of British men in occupied Germany, such as Jan Thexton, meeting and
arranging to marry their future wives was a deliberate decision that meant they had to
overcome significant personal, bureaucratic and social obstacles, and which inevitably
affected and changed their future lives as much, if not more, than anything else they did
during and after the war. Rather than providing evidence of ‘the breakdown of moral and
cultural norms’ in a society ‘confronted with destruction, death and the flight of women and
children for survival’, as claimed by Weber-Newth,
210
the history of the 10,000 German and
Austrian war brides who married British servicemen and members of the Control
Commission shows the strength and persistence of social convention and moral standards.
Despite the experience of the war and its aftermath, in the field of personal relationships,
207
FO 1020/683, quoted in Schropper, Austrian female migration to Britain, section 2.1.2.3, ‘Marriage requirements.’
Similar regulations applied in Germany.
208
See above p226
209
IWM SA, Thexton
210
Weber-Newth, ‘Bilateral relations: British Soldiers and German Women’, p56
233
British and German individuals applied and expected similar standards of social and
personal behaviour.
7.5 People like us?
‘But it was part of the normal scene almost, this constant movement of peoples
and the feeling of the lost tribe almost.’
211
In contrast to their view of German civilians, the four young officers and IWM interviewees
considered here increasingly perceived Russian soldiers, and Russian, Polish and other
Eastern European Displaced Persons (DPs), unfavourably in terms of national stereotypes,
despite the Soviet Union having fought on the same side as Britain in the war and the DPs
having suffered as forced labourers under German rule. Whereas extensive contacts with
the German civilian population on many different levels and in different contexts, at work, as
neighbours, domestic servants, friends, lovers and potential marriage partners, resulted in
their being perceived as individuals and ‘people like us’, lack of contact with Russian soldiers
and Eastern European DPs contributed to their being perceived as socially and culturally
different.
One IWM interviewee, for example, described the Russians in Berlin as ‘fine fighting soldiers’
but a ‘very different sort of people from what we were.’
212
Similarly, initial sympathy for DPs
as victims of Nazism was replaced with a perception of them as a problem. Although this
view was often based on hearsay and rumour, there was no lack of circumstantial evidence
which reinforced numerous stories of Russian soldiers and DPs looting, raping, stealing and
murdering.
213
These post-war perceptions contributed to the development of a Cold War
mentality, as they reinforced long-standing suspicions of Soviet intentions and more recent
concerns about new communist regimes in Poland and Eastern Europe,
211
IWM SA, Palliser
IWM SA, Martin Cosmo Hastings
E.g., Report by Noel Annan on Displaced Persons in Pelly & Yasamee, Documents on British Policy Overseas,
Series 1, pp43-47; FO 1056/1040, Goronwy Rees’ tour diary
212
213
234
Russian soldiers
In the closing stages of the war in Europe, it appeared to some British military units on the
ground in Germany, with justification, that their movements were directed as much against a
potential Russian threat, as against German military opposition which had already collapsed.
Michael Palliser, for example, described how, when his battalion of Churchill tanks was
dispersed around the countryside north of Hamburg, hoping to be sent to Denmark, which
had a reputation of being something of a ‘land of milk and honey,’ another brigade ‘came
zooming through us one day, to our indignation, and zoomed on up to Denmark’ in order to
get there before the Russians.
214
This was not an isolated occurrence. In the final days of the war, a number of British units
raced to reach positions ahead of the Russians. In his history of T-Force, Sean Longden
described how one unit, under the command of Major Tony Hibbert, was ordered on 1 May,
shortly before VE Day, to advance urgently to the naval port of Kiel on the Baltic.
215
Hibbert
later made enquiries as to where his orders had originated and discovered that, a month
earlier, on 4 April 1945, a radio signal from the Japanese embassy in Stockholm to Tokyo
had been intercepted, stating that the Russians intended to occupy Denmark. As a result, on
1 May, the same day that Hibbert was ordered to advance to Kiel, the Royal Navy received
orders to enter Copenhagen harbour, which it did on 4 May, and British troops advanced to
Wismar on the Baltic coast, twenty miles inside the area agreed as forming the Soviet Zone,
arriving on 2 May just before the Russians.
216
Throughout the Cold War, the idea that the British and Americans could, or should, have
combined with Germany, their wartime enemy, against the Soviet Union, their former ally,
was commonplace in West Germany, while British government officials were anxious to deny
they had ever been sympathetic to the idea. When interviewed in 2010, Michael Palliser
explained that in his view, tensions between the Allies at the end of the war could never have
developed into open conflict, as British troops would have refused to fight with the Germans
against the Soviet Union.
217
But if, as Palliser suggested, the attitude of the great majority of
214
IWM SA, Palliser
Longden, T-Force, pp139-40; Tony Hibbert, Operation Eclipse, [http://www.majorhibbertslog.co.uk/OPE00.html
accessed 1 July 2010]
216
Ibid, p145
217
IWM SA, Palliser
215
235
British troops towards their Russian allies was favourable during and immediately after the
war, the situation changed quickly. When asked when he first became aware of increasing
suspicion of the Russians, Palliser replied:
I think that within, I would say, two or three months it was quite clear that there were
tensions. The Russians were making life more difficult and one kept getting stories of how
they treated returning prisoners-of-war and there was a build-up of distrust of the Russians,
which in a way … I was in Berlin a year after, ’46 rather than ’45 … there was undoubtedly
a very powerful feeling of distrust of the Russians.
218
The IWM interviewees who spoke of their encounters with Russian soldiers told a similar
story, of a short period of friendly relations, followed by tensions soon after the war,
consolidating over the next twelve months into a deep sense of suspicion and mistrust.
There was more contact between British and Russian soldiers in Berlin than elsewhere, but it
was limited, hence the British saw and heard evidence of the behaviour of Russian soldiers,
as dirty, drunk, looting and raping, without having sufficient personal contact to question
these stereotypes or appreciate the Russian point of view. Four of the IWM interviewees
were members of an advance party of British servicemen who went to Berlin in July 1945.
The stories they told reflected the German population’s image of the Russians and
highlighted behaviour both British and Germans considered socially, culturally and morally
reprehensible.
One IWM interviewee was the British officer responsible for security in the Tiergarten, the
principal black market district of Berlin. He had been told that if they could work with the
Russians in Berlin they could do so in the rest of Germany and Europe, but they never did.
People would rush in to say that Russians were looting. On one occasion a man came in
stark naked claiming that the Russians had stolen his clothes. They had to employ 1,000
Germans for a week, he continued, to clean the barracks they took over from the Russians.
In the garages where they stayed there was a dead body in the cellar. All washbasins had
been used as toilets.
219
One evening he saw a large number of Russian soldiers, men and
women, with their ponies loaded with loot, singing songs which may have come from Central
Asia: ‘There was something ominous about it all.’ Asked about the attitude of the Russian
218
219
Ibid
IWM SA, Martin Cosmo Hastings
236
troops to the British, he said that on the whole it was very good. They wanted schnapps, and
it didn’t matter if it was real or petrol. Personally he had few connections with the Russians
but when he came across them he found them very helpful.
220
An NCO told a similar story: ‘The Russians behaved appallingly.’ All the stories of soldiers
with watches up their arms were quite true. He saw that dozens of times. Also ‘pulling
standard lamps out of a house and wondering why they wouldn’t work.’ Leaving a cinema
one night, he walked straight into rifle fire where British troops were firing at Russians. When
they first arrived in Berlin the troops were meant to stay in the Olympic Stadium, but it was
uninhabitable. Two Olympic pools had been used as latrines. Statues had their heads
knocked off and cupboards were reduced to matchwood. For the first two to three weeks, the
British soldiers slept in lorries at the back of the stadium. In general, he said ‘It must have
been terrible for the Germans – without a doubt … Like the Vikings, plunder, pillage and
rape.’ Asked about the attitude of the Russians to the British troops he replied that it was
cautious. The ordinary soldiers didn’t mix with each other and there was no organised
contact.
221
The evidence examined for this study indicates that most British people in Germany had little
contact with Russian soldiers. After an initial period of friendly relations, they adopted the
stereotypes prevalent at the time among the German population, as these views were
generally in accordance with their own preconceptions and were confirmed by the negative
experiences of those who did encounter Russian troops, especially in Berlin.
Displaced Persons
At the end of the war it has been estimated there were around 10.8 million DPs in the area of
the former German Reich, plus occupied parts of France and Belgium,
222
but this number
reduced rapidly over the next twelve months to less than 400,000 in the British Zone.
223
At
the end of September 1945, it was estimated that the number in the western zones was
between 1.2 and 1.4 million,
224
including 825,000 Poles, 100,000 Ukrainians and 188,000
220
Ibid
IWM SA, Chambers
222
Wolfgang Jacobmeyer, Vom Zwangsarbeiter zum Heimatlosen Ausländer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1985), p41
223
Ibid, p41, p60
224
Ibid, p83
221
237
from the Baltic States.
225
Around 600,000 DPs were accommodated in each of the US and
British zones, and 100,000 in the French zone.
365,872 in the British Zone in June 1946,
227
226
Numbers then declined more gradually to
and 217,725 in August 1947.
228
Official policy and planning for DPs conducted during the war by SHAEF, the combined US
and British Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force, was based on the
assumption that liberated DPs would wish to return home as soon as possible, but would be
amenable to staying in temporary ‘Assembly Centres’ for a short period while travel
arrangements were made.
229
Once Displaced Persons were accommodated in camps, the
British occupiers had little contact with them, except when required to resolve a dispute or
conflict. From September 1945, most DPs in the British Zone were Poles who refused to
return following reports of poor living conditions in Poland under communist rule. Some
feared enlistment in the Polish army or of being treated as collaborators. Others, originally
from the east of the country, were concerned that their former homes were now under
Russian control and part of the Soviet Union.
230
In a pioneering study, Wolfgang Jacobmeyer claimed that the perception of DPs by
American and British occupation forces was misinformed and based on inaccurate
stereotypes.
231
In a study of crime statistics for Bremen from May to November 1945, he
showed that the crime rate among the DP population, 2.03% including minor offences, was
roughly similar to that among the German populations of other major cities at the same time.
This was much higher than in 1928 but, as Jacobmeyer argued, comparison with a pre-war
norm was not appropriate for post-war crime rates as most crimes in Germany in 1945 and
1946, whether committed by DPs or the local population, were related to obtaining food and
a consequence of the economic conditions at the time.
232
However, figures for Bremen may
not be typical of the rest of the country. Records of crimes tried at the British Military
Government High Court in Hamburg, 22 June 1945 to 31 March 1947, tend to support the
225
Steinert, Nach Holocaust und Zwangsarbeit, p130
Ibid
Ibid
228
Jacobmeyer, Vom Zwangsarbeiter zum Heimatlosen Ausländer, p185, p224. Despite schemes promoted by the
IRO (International Refugee Organisation) for DPs to emigrate to the US, Australia, Canada, Great Britain and Israel,
there were still 100,000 DPs living in Germany three years later in 1950, including 64,000 in the British zone, when
their status was officially changed from ‘Displaced Persons’ to ‘Heimatlosen Ausländer’ (Homeless Foreigners).
229
Ibid, p25
230
Steinert, Nach Holocaust und Zwangsarbeit, p130
231
Jacobmeyer, Vom Zwangsarbeiter zum Heimatlosen Ausländer, p15
232
Jacobmeyer, Vom Zwangsarbeiter zum Heimatlosen Ausländer, pp48-9
226
227
238
anecdotal evidence from contemporary observers of a high crime rate among DPs. Over
25% of those accused were Polish, Russian or Eastern European. Of the nine people
sentenced to death, eight were Polish and one German.
233
Of those considered in this chapter, three of the four young officers and five of the twentyone IWM interviewees spoke of contacts with DPs, in all cases referring to them as potential
sources of trouble, but not without sympathy. Initially the predominant image was of the
constant movement of people, both Germans and other nationalities, as if, as one
commentator described it, a giant ant-heap had been disturbed.
234
Michael Palliser referred
to it as ‘part of the normal scene … the feeling of the lost tribe almost.’
235
Michael Howard described how one of his colleagues, a British officer, was killed by a
‘marauding band of DPs’. His colleague was taking his German girlfriend home when they
were flagged down by a German woman, who told them that ‘drunken Polish DPs were
ransacking the farm where she lived.’ He drove to the farm but was shot dead. His girlfriend
managed to get into the driving seat of the car and return to the town. The Polish DPs were
later captured by a platoon of British soldiers, tried and condemned to death by firing
squad.
236
Howard was not unsympathetic towards DPs as individuals, though critical of the
Soviet and Polish governments, whom he blamed for the DPs’ unwillingness to go home. He
explained that Belgians, Dutch and French returned home very quickly, as did Russian DPs,
although those who had been captured in the fighting were ‘seen as cowards, collaborators
and traitors’ by the Soviet government and ‘many were eliminated on return.’ By the end of
1946, he wrote, the great majority of those remaining were Poles and ‘the DP problem had
237
effectively become a Polish DP problem.’
The US soldier and commentator, Saul Padover, has suggested that Germans blamed
Eastern European DPs whenever a crime had been committed and US soldiers believed
them, though everyone plundered at that time, including US soldiers and German civilians.
Padover added that Goebbels would be ‘laughing up his sleeve’ at this ‘final triumph of his
233
FO 1060/2793, Register of Military Government Court, High Court in Hamburg
Yvone Kirkpatrick, The Inner Circle (London: Macmillan, 1959), p190
235
IWM SA, Palliser
236
Howard, Otherwise Occupied,, pp119-120
237
Ibid, pp118-9
234
239
propaganda’.
238
This explanation is not satisfactory, as, initially at least, British (and US)
soldiers had no reason to believe the Germans rather than the DPs; everything they had
been told during the war encouraged them to see DPs favourably, as representatives of
Allied nations and victims of the Germans who deserved their sympathy. In addition, as the
examples quoted above from the young British officers and IWM interviewees show, they
were not as naïve as Padover suggested. In the absence of any functioning German police
at the end of the war, the occupation forces investigated and resolved many cases
themselves and were not necessarily dependent on second hand reports from the local
population.
Jacobmeyer suggested a different explanation for the US and British Allies placing an
exaggerated emphasis on crime committed by DPs: that they were disappointed at the lack
of gratitude shown by DPs for their liberation and surprised that they of all people should
resort to crime.
239
This explanation is not satisfactory either. The occupation forces may at
times have felt that DPs were not suitably grateful for what they believed had been done for
them, but this view did not necessarily lead to a perception of them as criminals. It could be
argued that they expected DPs, as oppressed slave labourers, to take revenge against their
former masters and that a high level of crime was therefore, initially at least, understandable
and unsurprising. For example, as General Templer wrote in the British Zone Review, about
the chaos of ‘The Early Days’:
Over this grim scene there swarmed a milling mass of displaced persons, drunk with
liberation and in some cases alcohol, looting, raping and killing. Considering the history of
the past five years, this was not surprising.
240
If revenge attacks by DPs were to be expected, the British occupiers found the reluctance
among some DPs to return home more surprising. Their assumption, based on everything
they had been told during the war, was that liberated slave labourers from countries invaded
by the Nazis would wish to return home as soon as possible, as many did. The British had
entered the war to defend the independence of Poland. After the fall of France they fought to
defend themselves, but as the threat of invasion receded they, with their US Allies, believed
238
Quoted in Steinert, Nach Holocaust und Zwangsarbeit, p42. Padover left Germany soon after VE Day and was
referring to the period before the end of the war (when Goebbels was still alive).
239
Jacobmeyer, Vom Zwangsarbeiter zum Heimatlosen Ausländer,, p50. ‘Criminality by DPs appeared, in the
judgement of the Allies, not only as pure disobedience but, worse still, as malicious ingratitude.’
240
‘The Early Days’, British Zone Review, Vol.1, No.4, Nov. 1945, p1
240
they were fighting a crusade to liberate the rest of Europe from their Nazi oppressors. Once
this had been achieved, the reluctance of some DPs to return home raised difficult
questions. Was a country truly liberated if the people who had lived there before the war did
not want to return? Or were the DPs reluctant to return because they were collaborators who
had volunteered to work in Germany rather than being forced to do so, in which case did
they deserve favourable treatment? The British perception of DPs depended on their
nationality. Rather than seeing all as victims of Nazi oppression, the greatest criticism was
focussed on the ‘Poles and Russians,’
241
as they were the most reluctant to return home.
242
By the end of 1945, the remaining DPs were mostly Polish and did not want to return home
to a country now under communist control. In these circumstances, both sympathy for DPs,
and a perception that they represented a problem that needed to be controlled, served to
reinforce Cold War attitudes. As DPs were kept isolated in camps, often in poor conditions
and unable to obtain work, encounters between British occupying forces and DPs were
limited and, when they occurred, were often in difficult circumstances of confrontation and
dispute. DPs therefore came to be perceived as troublemakers and were stereotyped as
members of a national group, Poles or Russians, that did not observe accepted standards of
behaviour. At the same time, sympathy with the difficulties experienced by individual DPs
served to reinforce a Cold War perception of communist governments in the Soviet Union
and Poland as oppressive regimes, that did not share the same values or abide by the same
standards as those the British believed were typical of their own ‘civilised’ behaviour.
7.6
Conclusion
The four young officers discussed in depth in this chapter, together with the twenty young
men and one woman interviewed for the Imperial War Museum Sound Archive whose views
are also considered here, were highly diverse. They came from varied family and
241
When British reports spoke of criminality among DPs, this was often qualified by reference to ‘Poles and
Russians’, e.g. Donnison, Civil Affairs and Military Government, p357. See also FO 1056/540, Goronwy Rees’ Tour
Diary for 1 July 1945, in which he wrote that: ‘displaced persons, especially Russians and Poles, are able to roam
the country at will, raiding isolated farms or houses for food, valuables or women.’
242
Citizens of the former Baltic States were an exception, as they were regarded favourably by the British despite
their unwillingness to return home. This can be explained by their being considered to be victims of Russian
aggression, at a time when the Russians were allies of Nazi Germany. Around 190,000 Baltic DPs in the US and
British zones were exempted from forcible repatriation earlier than other Soviet citizens, on the grounds that the
Western Allies did not recognise the Russian annexation of the Baltic States in 1940. See Steinert and WeberNewth, European Immigrants in Britain, p142
241
educational backgrounds and performed a wide range of tasks in occupied Germany, to
which they brought diverse experiences, attitudes and prejudices. Although they cannot be
categorised as a ‘strong generation’, sharing a common understanding of significant
historical events, they formed a ‘weak generation’, or age cohort, with one important
characteristic: all had little, if any, adult experience other than war and had to adapt to an
entirely new and unfamiliar situation in a strange country. Some had to deal with people from
several different national cultures: Americans, French, Poles and Russians, as well as
Germans. Most found themselves in Germany because their units were stationed there at
the end of the war. Instead of returning home, they had to stay for at least twelve months
until they were demobilised. Some were simply glad to be alive, some took advantage of the
opportunity to enjoy themselves and a few, including Howard and Chaloner, were given
important jobs with responsibilities far in excess of what was usual at their age.
Unlike their senior officers, the majority of those considered, with a few significant
exceptions, did not explicitly mention the evidence of death and destruction they saw around
them, regardless of whether this was due to Allied bombing campaigns and the land battles
at the end of the war, or to war crimes and atrocities committed by Germans in concentration
camps or elsewhere. Their overwhelming concern, reflected both in their work and their
personal relationships, was not to look back on the horrors of the past, but forward to the
future, uncertain as this was. It could be argued that Hannah Arendt’s reference to the
‘absence of mourning for the dead’, that ‘nowhere is this nightmare of destruction and horror
less felt and less talked about than in Germany itself’
243
applied at least to some of the
British as well as to defeated and apathetic Germans.
Two other themes noted previously as characteristic of the senior officers were also absent
from the reactions of those considered in this chapter. There were no ‘echoes of Empire’ or
references to the Imperial ideals of trusteeship and service which were so prominent among
the older generation, though Howard was born in Fiji, where his father was a colonial
administrator, Thexton spent his early childhood in Bermuda and three of the IWM
interviewees had served in India during the war and one in Africa. The only exception was a
comment by Michael Palliser, (whose maternal grandfather had worked as a naval engineer
243
Hannah Arendt, ‘The Aftermath of Nazi Rule: Report from Germany’, Commentary, No.10, October 1950, p342
242
in South Africa and Australia). When asked about the overall aims of the occupation, Palliser
replied that there was: ‘a rather British feeling, semi-colonial in a way ... [to] ensure the
colony worked well,’ but he described this as a ‘post-colonial atmosphere’ suggesting a
perception of the end of Empire, rather than its heyday.
244
Similarly, there was no evidence of the ‘missionary idealism’ or the exhortations to ‘save the
soul of Germany’ and ‘rebuild civilisation’ expressed by Montgomery and Robertson in their
speeches and broadcasts. With the exception of two conscientious objectors, religious faith
or belief was not mentioned in interviews or considered relevant to their time in Germany.
Ironically, personal idealism and moral principles were most in evidence when they acted in
opposition to official Military Government policy, as in Howard’s determination to continue to
secure material from Germany to assist British economic recovery and Chaloner’s belief in
the need to create a free press, independent of government.
The overwhelming concern of these young people was their personal welfare and their
future. They were not rebels. They were in no doubt that the war had been just and
necessary. They were pragmatic, accepted orders and worked hard when required. But now
the war was over, individual goals were more important than collective aims. In the absence
of any serious resistance from the German population, personal relations became as, if not
more, important than their work.
All four young officers, and seventeen of the twenty-one IWM interviewees, spoke of
contacts with the local German population. These ranged from meeting people through work
or as neighbours, providing goods and services, leisure activities such as going to the
theatre, concerts or the cinema, to girlfriends, casual sex and marriage. Through making
personal contact, they came to see Germans as individuals, rather than collectively as the
enemy. This perception went further than making a black and white distinction between
‘good’ Germans who had opposed and ‘bad’ Germans who had supported the Nazi regime.
The Germans they met and spoke to appeared to share the same values as they did, of
respect for life and property, self-control and respect for authority. Michael Howard found he
had more in common with ‘a pleasant and intelligent German than a stupid and uncongenial
244
IWM SA, Palliser
243
Englishman’ and sided with a German doctor in a dispute over the use of his house, against
his own colonel and commanding officer who, in his view, displayed a lack of ‘moral sense of
any sort.’
245
Some collective prejudices remained, but wartime stereotypes of Germans as
militaristic, aggressive and brutal, were replaced with others that reflected their status as a
defeated nation, such as apathetic, self-pitying and unconcerned for others.
In contrast with the German population, personal contacts with Russian soldiers and
Displaced Persons were very limited and, from September 1945, nearly always in
circumstances of conflict. Jacobmeyer has written of the alienation of DPs from the German
population once they were gathered together in camps and claimed this contributed to a
perception of them as ‘the enemy.’
246
It appears that a similar process applied to the British
occupiers. The policy of internment in camps and the lack of direct personal contact led to a
collective, and often incorrect, perception of Russian soldiers and those DPs who remained
after September 1945 as drunken, criminal troublemakers, who did not observe accepted
standards of behaviour and had no respect for ‘civilised’ values, such as respect for life and
property, personal cleanliness and self-control.
Despite their differences, both senior and younger officers were more concerned with the
future than the past, which led them to focus on reconstruction rather than restitution and
reparations. The senior officers understood their role to be the restoration of order and the
prevention of disease and social unrest, which presupposed a reasonably effective civil
administration and a functioning economy. With a few exceptions such as Chaloner and
Howard, the younger generation was not motivated by the same ideological concerns as
their seniors, nor did they respond to the end of the war by seeking revenge, or justice.
Facing an uncertain future, in the interlude between the end of the war and returning home,
they started to adjust to a peacetime mentality and rebuild their lives. Through personal
contacts, at work and in their leisure time, they became reconciled to their former enemies,
cooperated willingly on the task of reconstruction and found no difficulty working with
Germans they came to see as individuals and ‘people like us.’
245
246
Howard, Otherwise Occupied, p287
Jacobmeyer, Vom Zwangsarbeiter zum Heimatlosen Ausländer, p52
244
These changes were reflected in the personal histories of all four of the young officers
considered here. Although this period was a brief interlude, it was also a formative influence
on the rest of their lives. John Chaloner created a new magazine, Der Spiegel, as a model
for a free press, independent of government. Having succeeded, he found his new magazine
could survive without him and, in time, become more financially successful and politically
influential than any equivalent British publication. Michael Palliser, who said he understood
the army of occupation was there in case there was any trouble with the Germans, and ‘to
make sure Germany was not in a position to do it again’, became a convinced European and
spent much of his later working life negotiating British entry to the European Community. Jan
Thexton, who accepted a job with the Control Commission because he believed he was too
old to return to accountancy, whose strongest memories of his time in Germany were ‘just
getting to know the Germans’, and who met and married his wife in Germany, changed jobs
from compiling lists of equipment for reparations, to procuring supplies for the occupation
forces from the German economy, and then to promoting sales of British weapons and
equipment to the newly formed German armed forces. Michael Howard, whose role was to
exact as much as possible in reparations from Germany, found that, by the time he was due
to leave, he was out of step with official policy. Over 60 years later, he still claimed that the
contribution he and his unit made to assist British economic recovery had never been
properly recognised. Shortly before he left Germany, he exchanged fond farewells with a girl
he had met through his work, and they stayed in touch, as friends, for over 60 years.
245
8
Conclusion
This thesis explores what twelve important and influential British individuals aimed to achieve
in occupied Germany, and why, and how this changed over time. In so doing it aims to
contribute to a better understanding of the motivation of the ‘governing elite’ of leading British
officials and administrators in the first three years after the war ended in May 1945, and
explain why British policies changed rapidly from conflict to cooperation, from the ‘Four Ds’
agreed at Potsdam to a more positive policy, which I have described as the ‘Three Rs’ of
physical and economic Reconstruction, political Renewal and personal Reconciliation.
Diversity
The biographical approach adopted highlights the diversity of aims and intentions among
British people in Germany, which varied according to their age and experience, roles and
responsibilities, political and religious beliefs. This diversity helps to explain some of the
apparent contradictions in British policy, such as the combination of pragmatism and
idealism, economic constraints with attempts to promote reconstruction, and the parallel
worlds of occupier and occupied living apart with examples of intense engagement. Mary
1
Fulbrook has noted in her book, Dissonant Lives, that to describe patterns of behaviour in
dichotomous terms, such as ‘coercion vs consent’, ‘misses the complexities surrounding
2
different degrees of constraints and a related sense of agency.’ Similarly, it appears from
the evidence collected for this study that generalised descriptions of British policy and
actions, which do not account for diversity of attitudes and behaviour, are at best an oversimplification and at worst a distortion. For example, the occupation cannot be characterised
simply as ‘pragmatic’ or ‘idealistic’, or as ‘isolated’ or ‘integrated’ with the local population.
The reality was more complex.
While Montgomery, Robertson and their senior colleagues accepted and implemented the
Potsdam decisions to disarm, demilitarise and denazify Germany, they perceived these
tasks as relatively straightforward, compared with the far more difficult work of creating order
out of chaos and promoting an economically viable, stable democracy. A policy of economic
reconstruction, to be followed by political renewal, was outlined as early as September 1945
1
Mary Fulbrook, Dissonant Lives: Generations and violence through the German dictatorships (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011)
2
Ibid, p477
246
in a new Directive of Military Government, prepared by Montgomery, Robertson and their
colleagues at the highest level of Military Government, at a time when the Foreign Office had
no formal responsibility for internal affairs within the British Zone and the new Labour
Government had only recently assumed office. In 1946 the Foreign Office played a
significant part in accelerating the process of devolution of power to local German
administrations, but the process had already been foreshadowed in Montgomery’s memos a
year earlier, and implementation started before the end of 1945, with the creation of
nominated representative councils, licensing of political parties and preparations for
democratic elections.
The three army generals, Montgomery, Robertson, and Bishop, were concerned to restore
order from chaos, prevent unrest, and more generally, preserve the established social order,
as this was in their own interest as members of a professional British establishment that had
gained its wealth and social position from public service at home and in the empire, in the
army, in government positions, in business, or through inheriting landed estates. They
justified a policy of reconstruction through reference to the need to ‘rebuild civilisation’ after
the destruction of war, missionary ideals of ‘saving the soul of Germany’, and paternalistic
notions of imperial trusteeship, caring for a nation until the inhabitants were, in their view,
mature enough to take responsibility for government. After leaving Germany, they were able
to present a self-congratulatory account of humane and benign British policies, which had
contributed to a peaceful and economically prosperous Federal Republic. Sholto Douglas
was the exception among this group. He hated his time in Germany, was pragmatic rather
than idealistic, and troubled by personal issues, such as being instructed to confirm the
death penalty on Goering, and allegations of corruption made in the British press.
The partial and self-congratulatory account of the army generals can be qualified by
examining the histories of other British individuals, who also played an important and
influential role in occupied Germany. The four civilian administrators were a very diverse
group with little in common, despite all working in different ways to promote their conception
of democracy in Germany. Ingrams’ background was similar to that of the army generals. He
was influenced by his religious beliefs and experience of imperial administration. Despite
some early success in establishing nominated representative councils, his attempt to model
247
political renewal in Germany on antiquated notions of British ‘parish pump’ democracy
encountered strong resistance from leading German politicians and some of his British
colleagues. The two committed international socialists, Albu and Flanders, left Germany at
the end of 1947, disappointed that their achievements had not matched early hopes of
establishing a ‘positive socialist policy’ in Germany. Their socialist colleague, Berry, was
apparently more successful in Hamburg, though his aims were more modest. Heavily
influenced by his experience as a district administrator during the occupation of the
Rhineland after the First World War, he supported the newly elected SPD administration in
Hamburg led by the former exile Max Brauer, promoted the interests of the city, established
good working relations between British and German officials, and in so doing defused
potential conflicts and preserved British interests, which he perceived as similar to those of
the city: stability, economic reconstruction, personal reconciliation, and the maintenance of
good relations with the city’s business and political elite. As Frances Rosenfeld has shown,
both sides were proud of this at the time, but reconciliation was achieved at the cost of
ignoring difficult issues, such as the city’s Nazi past, and its destruction by Allied bombing.
The four young men with no adult experience but war were concerned above all for their own
welfare and personal future. In two cases, Howard and Chaloner, they decided to act on their
own initiative, even when this ran counter to official policy. They were not motivated by
religious beliefs or ideals of service to the British Empire, and appeared unaware of
exhortations from the generals at the top of the administration to ‘rebuild civilisation’ or ‘save
the soul of Germany’. Nevertheless, all four were conscientious, worked long hours when
required, and did not question the aims of the occupation, or the policies of economic
reconstruction, political renewal and personal reconciliation. Inevitably, as young men, they
had greater involvement with Germans than their senior officers, both through their work and
socially. Personal contacts of all kinds, including friendships and sexual relations with
German women, and in Thexton’s case, marriage, led them to see Germans as ‘people like
us’, rather than in terms of the stereotypes prevalent during the war.
Partial truths
Many earlier claims by historians regarding British policy in occupied Germany appear to be
partial truths that reflect some aspects of the situation, but not all. For example, some have
248
argued that the principal motivation underlying British policy was security: the need to disarm
3
Germany and memories of the failure of appeasement after the First World War. Although
this was true of many in Britain, such as Brigadier Morgan and the Parliamentary Post-War
4
Planning group, security concerns were not especially prominent among the individuals
researched for this study. Based on their personal experience of the scale of destruction, the
lack of resistance and a generally positive attitude of the Germans towards the British, they
considered there was little threat in the foreseeable future. Though aware that this might
change in future, they did not draw the conclusion that a harsh occupation was required,
either to extract reparations or to limit and control German economic activities indefinitely.
The post-war period was experienced by most Germans as a time of great hardship, not
surprisingly
in
view
of
widespread
hunger,
outbreaks
of
disease,
overcrowded
accommodation and an uncertain future, but this was not, as some Germans claimed at the
time, the result of deliberate British policy. The British tried to ameliorate the worst effects of
war and twelve years of Nazi rule, through securing imports of wheat, repairing the transport
infrastructure and reviving the economy. The lessons both Robertson and Berry drew from
their personal experience of the Rhineland occupation, were not only that appeasement had
failed in the 1930s, but also that they had failed to support German democrats in the 1920s,
and that, through inflicting unnecessarily harsh terms in the peace settlement of 1919, they
and their Allies had helped create the economic and social conditions which made it possible
for Hitler to seize power in 1933. As Military Governors, Robertson and Montgomery
emphasised the positive aspects of their policy of promoting reconstruction and giving
Germans ‘hope for the future’, rather than the negative aspects of disarmament,
denazification and economic controls.
A popular view of the occupation, widely held in Germany, was that the British were
motivated by commercial competition and wished to gain economic benefits from the
5
occupation. This was later denied by many senior British figures. The history of T-Force,
and Michael Howard’s claims that the value of reparations to the British economy was much
greater than officially acknowledged, show that there was some truth in these allegations,
3
Turner, Reconstruction in Post-War Germany, pp4-5; Judt, Postwar, p100
Morgan, Assize of Arms; Weymouth, Germany: Disease and Treatment
5
E.g. Cairncross, The Price of War, p75; Balfour & Mair, Four Power Control in Germany, p29
4
249
but the British Zone proved to be an economic liability, not an asset that could be exploited.
After a brief idealistic phase lasting until the end of 1945, the most important economic factor
affecting British policy and actions was the perceived need to reduce the cost of the
occupation. This perception in turn reinforced a policy of promoting German economic
revival, to generate exports of manufactured goods to pay for the import of raw materials,
especially food, subsidised by the British taxpayer.
The reactions of those discussed in this study to the Holocaust and other atrocities
committed by Germans were similarly complex. According to Mass Observation reports,
British attitudes towards Germany reached a low point at the end of the Second World War,
6
following press reports of the liberation of the concentration camps, but this was not
necessarily typical of British soldiers in Germany and did not prevent them from having good
relations with the local inhabitants. Palliser reported that he and his colleagues were not
surprised by reports of ‘horrific atrocities’. They considered this ‘typically German’ and ‘were
7
almost beyond being surprised by anything’, but still had friendly relations with the owners
of the house where they were billeted. Chaloner was the only one of the twelve who was
present at the liberation of a concentration camp. According to his sister, the experience
affected him deeply, but he never spoke of it, except in private family conversations, and
indirectly in a later novel. The experience did not prevent him, or his two Jewish staffsergeants, Bohrer and Ormond, from working closely with a team of young German
journalists to create Der Spiegel. Some British soldiers were motivated, at times, by a desire
for revenge, but this was not typical and was officially discouraged. A more common
response, typified by Montgomery, was to generalise the issues of war crimes and the
Holocaust and speak of the need to ‘restore civilisation’, or refer, as did the British Zone
Review in October 1945 and Chaloner later in private conversations with his sister, to ‘man’s
inhumanity to man.’
Common assumptions
Despite diversity among those considered in this study, it is possible to identify a number of
assumptions shared by all. The most significant of these was the aim of preventing another
war. This was rarely stated explicitly but always assumed. All agreed that the greatest failure
6
7
Kertesz, The Enemy – British images of the German People, p178
See above p208
250
of the peace settlement in 1919 was that it had not prevented a Second World War. ‘Winning
the Peace’ meant that, this time, there would be no more war.
8
A second assumption was that the war had been caused by German aggression, and that it
was essential to prevent the Nazi Party and former Nazis from achieving political power
again. But, while there was general agreement on the aim, there was no consensus about
how this could best be achieved. The socialist view, held by Albu and Flanders, was that the
Nazi Party had achieved power through the support of the armed forces, landowners and
industrialists, and it was necessary to remove their political influence in Germany through demilitarisation, land reform, and the socialisation of industry. However, many of the most
senior members of British Military Government were landowners, or had worked in business,
and could not be expected to subscribe to these views. Montgomery’s family held land in
Ireland. Robertson had managed a factory for Dunlop in South Africa. They found it easier to
think in terms of a population led astray by their leaders, or a group of evil men who had to
be removed from power. Once this had been done, they hoped the German people would
learn to live in peace with their neighbours.
Perhaps surprisingly, an anti-Russian, anti-communist consensus was shared by all,
regardless of their political principles. Over time four distinct issues combined to form the
prevalent and near universal Cold War mentality of the 1950s and 1960s. Firstly, longstanding concerns about Russia as a possible threat to the British Empire, expressed most
9
clearly by Montgomery. Secondly, a fear of communism among the professional middle
classes, typified by Bishop, as a social and political ideology that could spread, like a
disease, across Europe, create difficulties in the administration of Germany and possibly
threaten their social position at home in Britain. The two socialists, Albu and Flanders, did
not share this view but were equally opposed to Russian communism for a third set of
reasons, which dated back to the conflicts between socialists and communists in Germany in
the 1920s and 1930s. These came to a head in the Fusion campaign in Berlin in early 1946,
when Albu compared communist ‘totalitarian’ tactics with those of the Nazis. Fourthly,
8
E.g. FO 1030/329, ‘Verbatim notes of speech by Deputy Military Governor [Robertson] to Staff’, 31 July 1947:
‘What is our object in being here? It is often forgotten and often misunderstood … Our object here in Germany is to
create such conditions as shall be conducive for peace in Germany and Europe and hence the world.’
9
Eg in his memo of 1May 1946, that if conditions did not improve Germans would ‘begin to look East’ and this would
comprise a ‘definite menace to the British Empire.’
251
changing perceptions of Russian soldiers and Polish Displaced Persons reinforced antiRussian and anti-communist prejudices. Accounts by British personnel, including by Palliser,
Howard and IWM interviewees, show that DPs were viewed sympathetically by many British
personnel who came into contact with them, but at the same time they were perceived to be
culturally different and not ‘people like us’. Alternatively, as part of a different but
complementary narrative, DPs were described as ‘gallant allies’ whose reluctance to return
home confirmed a negative view of life under communism in Poland and the Soviet Union.
By the end of the period examined, ‘winning the peace’ had come to mean resisting Russian
communism, as much as preventing a revival of Nazism within Germany.
A further assumption shared by all was that, as the occupying power, the British had an
obligation to maintain the basic functions of government in their zone of occupation and care
for the welfare of the inhabitants. This meant they had to preserve life, prevent hunger and
disease, maintain law and order and provide opportunities for employment, thereby
preventing idleness and resulting discontent. These paternalistic notions were expressed
most explicitly by those who had worked in the Empire, such as Montgomery, Robertson,
Bishop and Ingrams, but were shared to some degree by all. Similar ideals, together with a
sense of duty and personal obligation, were promoted in the English public schools
10
and
may have influenced those who had not worked in the Empire. All but two of the twelve
individuals discussed in this study received a public school education.
11
All twelve believed that Britain was and would continue to be a great power in Europe and in
the world.
12
They gave no indication that they thought they were representatives of a power
in decline. Although they understood that Britain lacked economic resources, this was to be
expected after a long and difficult war. Even Albu, who before the war had voted for an antiimperialist candidate and advocated the creation of a socialist community of nations, had
been brought up on the adventure stories of Kipling, G.A. Henty and Captain Marryat.
13
The
attitudes I have described as ‘echoes of empire’ and ‘missionary idealism’ were most
prevalent among the older generation of army officers, such as Montgomery, Robertson and
10
Noel Annan, Our Age: Portrait of a Generation (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1990), pp37ff
The exceptions were Chaloner and Thexton. Chaloner would have been exposed to similar ideas at Sandhurst.
With the possible exception of Flanders. The Socialist Vanguard Group supported independence for India and
were opposed to Empire, on the basis that they believed in self-determination and objected to exploitation in any
form.
13
Albu, Back Bench Technocrat, p1.2, p2.1. Albu also wrote that he was given the name Austen after Austen
Chamberlain, because his parents admired his brother, the liberal imperialist Joseph Chamberlain. 13
11
12
252
Bishop, and former colonial administrators such as Ingrams. In their cases, direct parallels
can be observed between their experiences in the Empire and policy and practices in
occupied Germany. Imperial attitudes were less apparent among the socialist civilian
administrators, Albu, Flanders and Berry, or the younger generation of officers, although
Palliser, Thexton and Howard all had fathers who had worked overseas, in the navy,
Bermuda and Fiji.
All agreed that Britain should not have to bear the cost of the occupation. Early idealistic
notions that the British would stay in Germany for twenty-five years and do whatever was
necessary to prevent another war, were soon superseded by the requirement imposed from
London that the cost to the British taxpayer had to be reduced. From early 1946 onwards, all
those considered in this study accepted that British involvement in Germany would be
temporary and had to be progressively scaled back.
14
This implied that new social and
political structures could not be imposed against the will of the Germans, as any reforms
could be reversed once the British left. Even Ingrams accepted that he had to obtain
agreement from the ‘German Working Party’ to his proposed changes to electoral procedure.
Once Ordnance 57 devolved responsibility to local German administrations, British scope to
implement any structural change was further reduced. British policy was limited to giving the
Germans space to make their own decisions and reform their own institutions, while the
British retained the power of veto, offering guidance and advice, but not imposing an alien
model of government upon reluctant Germans.
Aims and intentions and how these changed over time
Although much of the evidence presented in this study was subjective, reflecting the
perceptions of the twelve individuals researched, as recorded at the time in contemporary
documents and in later memoirs and oral history interviews, some very broad generalisations
can be made regarding British aims and policy in occupied Germany, on the basis of this
study of twelve individuals. They all responded pragmatically to the chaos and destruction
they saw around them, while the generals at the top of the administration justified a policy of
taking active measures, rather than sitting back and doing nothing, in idealistic terms. Only a
minority wanted to change fundamentally the structure of German social and political
14
With some reluctance in the case of Ingrams
253
institutions. All, including those who had hoped for a revolution within Germany to overthrow
Hitler, now considered it essential to keep the peace, maintain law and order, control disease
and provide employment, as they believed a stable, peaceful and democratic Germany was
in Britain’s national interest and in their own interest as members of a professional middle
class. They worked to restore what they understood to be representative and responsible
government by Germans, initially at local level and later regionally.
A deliberate policy of personal reconciliation followed later, in 1947, after numerous
individual encounters at all levels between British and Germans had started to build trust and
mutual respect. Examples given in this thesis include tributes paid by leading CDU
politicians, Konrad Adenauer and Karl Arnold, to Robertson and Bishop respectively, the
close working relationship between Berry and Brauer, the connections Albu and Flanders
had with their German socialist colleagues in Neu Beginnen and the ISK, Chaloner’s
recruitment of a team of young German journalists to create Der Spiegel, Howard’s
relationship with the daughter of the doctor in whose house he was billeted and the 10,000
British men, including Thexton, who met and married their wives in Germany. The policy of
personal reconciliation received official endorsement with the formation of officially approved
Anglo-German discussion groups and cultural centres, and from May 1947 in official
directives and instructions.
The twelve individuals justified a policy of Reconstruction, Renewal and Reconciliation in
different ways, on the basis of the ‘mental baggage’ each brought with them. The older
generation drew on personal religious beliefs, referring to the need to ‘rebuild civilisation’ or
’save the soul of Germany’, and their understanding of the British Empire as a force for good
in the world. Those who had lived through the occupation of the Rhineland after the First
World War wrote of the need to support democratic politicians, and prevent a recurrence of
economic and social conditions which had favoured the rise of extreme political parties, by
which they meant both Nazis and Communists. The socialists argued that only a ‘positive
socialist policy’ could prevent a return to fascism. Some members of the younger generation,
such as Chaloner and Howard, were motivated by the ideals for which they had fought the
war, or principles acquired at school or from their families, such as an understanding of what
they considered morally right. At the same time, they and others were concerned for the
254
future, trying to rebuild their careers or personal lives after six years of war, and exploiting
the situation as best they could for their personal advantage.
It has been claimed that the stable democracy which later emerged in the Federal Republic
was primarily the result of economic success, not the political or social steps taken by the
Western Allies.
15
This reflects the view expressed by many Germans in the first three years
after the war, repeated and assumed to be correct by many of the British, including
Montgomery and Douglas, that ‘it’s no use talking to us about democratic ideals unless you
first fill our bellies.’
16
It can, of course, be argued that there is a close connection between
capitalism, economic prosperity and liberal democracy, but this was by no means apparent
in the 1940s and it was not a simple matter of cause and effect. Many of the early British
attempts to promote political renewal achieved few direct results. If however, the process of
democratisation in Germany is seen as a ‘learning process’ that extended over 50 years
from 1945, through social and political liberalisation in the 1960s, to eventual reunification in
1990 and beyond,
17
the twelve individuals discussed in this study may have made a
significant contribution, not through deliberate structural reforms or ‘forced reorientation’
18
but by promoting dialogue and debate, and offering various institutional models the Germans
could compare with their own traditions and modify, adopt or reject, as they thought best.
To return to the question implied by the title of this thesis, did the British in occupied
Germany succeed in ‘winning the peace’ after winning the war? There has been no further
war in Europe,
prosperous,
20
19
and both Britain and Germany have been politically stable and economically
so it could be argued that the goal of ‘winning the peace’ was achieved. On
the other hand, many people in both countries are still coming to terms with the past; in
Germany with memories of death, violence, the Holocaust, loss of their homes, and forty
years of division between a capitalist West and Communist East. In Britain, although the
ruptures were less, some still have difficulty coming to terms with the end of Empire and a
diminished global role. It is hoped that this thesis can contribute to a better understanding of
15
Mary Fulbrook, The Fontana History of Germany: 1918-1990, The Divided Nation (London: Fontana Press, 1991),
p150
16
FO 1030/170, quoted by Douglas in his lecture to the Imperial Defence College, 12 June 1947
17
As proposed in Herbert, ‘Liberalisierung als Lernprozeß’
18
As claimed by Jarausch, After Hitler: Recivilizing Germans
19
Excluding former Yugoslavia
20
Including East Germany, if the years from 1950-90 are compared with the previous forty years from 1910 to 1950
and allowing for a peaceful Wende and reunification in 1990.
255
British aims in occupied Germany and assist further research on how Germany emerged
from Nazi dictatorship, war and foreign occupation, and the role of the British in helping or
hindering this process. In so doing it can help us understand better the legacies of competing
ideologies, oppressive governments, violent wars, and the subsequent defeat, occupation
and rule of one country by another, that continue to cast their long shadows
21
on the world
today.
21
Axel Schildt, ‘The Long Shadows of the Second World War: The Impact of Experiences and Memories of War on
West German Society’ German Historical Institute London Bulletin, Vol. XXIX, No.1, (May 2007), pp28-49
256
257
Appendix A: Note on Sources
Personal memoirs and autobiographies
Personal memoirs and autobiographies were a useful starting point for further research in
the primary archives, and a valuable indication of the subject’s attitudes, intentions and
motivation. They have the advantage of providing a coherent and easily comprehensible
account of the time the subject spent in Germany, together with their own accounts of their
aims and intentions. On the other hand, they have the disadvantage that, written with
hindsight, they may project an artificial coherence onto the course of events and, consciously
or unconsciously, seek to present the author and his or her actions in a favourable light,
whilst being selective as to what they include.
Personal memoirs have been used for seven of the twelve individuals, though they vary
1
greatly in scale and quality. Montgomery and Douglas both published autobiographies, but
whereas Montgomery based his on a contemporary ‘log’ written for him while he was in
Germany,
2
Douglas based his on personal memories and made less use of official
documents. Michael Howard published his memories of his time in Germany in 2010, based
on letters he wrote as a young officer to his parents, carefully preserved by his mother.
3
Bishop’s and Albu’s memoirs both consist of unpublished typescripts written in retirement,
4
whereas Berry recorded his memories at the end of his life on an extended series of over
5
forty tapes. Ingrams did not write a personal memoir of his time in Germany, but a published
account of a journey across the Sahara to take up a position in Africa shortly afterwards, is
an excellent source for his views on the future development of the British Empire and
complements official papers he wrote in Germany.
1
6
Bernard Montgomery, The Memoirs of Field-Marshal The Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, K.G. (London: Collins,
1958); Sholto Douglas, Years of Combat: the first volume of the autobiography of Sholto Douglas, Marshal of the
Royal Air Force Lord Douglas of Kirtleside G.C.B. M.C. D.F.S. (London: Collins, 1963); Sholto Douglas with Robert
Wright, Years of Command: the second volume of the autobiography of Sholto Douglas, Marshal of the Royal Air
Force Lord Douglas of Kirtleside G.C.B. M.C. D.F.S. (London: Collins, 1966)
2
The ‘log’ is preserved with Montgomery’s personal papers at the Imperial War Museum (IWM) as four volumes of
‘Notes on the Occupation of Germany’, IWM BLM85-88.
3
Michael Howard, Otherwise Occupied: Letters home from the ruins of Nazi Germany (Tiverton: Old Street
Publishing, 2010)
4
Alec Bishop, Look Back with Pleasure (Beckley, Sussex: unpublished, 1971), IWM ref. AB1; Austen Albu, Back
Bench Technocrat, unpublished autobiography, Churchill Archives Centre ref. AP15
5
Bath Record Office, ‘The Life and Times of Sir Vaughan Berry’, set of 45 CDs
6
Harold Ingrams, Seven across the Sahara (London: John Murray, 1949)
258
Official documents
The official papers of the British Military Government and Control Commission in Germany
have been used extensively but can be problematic. Only 1% of the records have survived;
the rest were lost in transit from Germany to Britain or destroyed, apparently haphazardly
7
rather than due to any consistent archival policy. There is extensive duplication and many
gaps in the record, which makes it difficult to follow any person or theme over time. Many
papers deal with routine and often trivial administrative matters. The papers are poorly
catalogued in The National Archives (hereafter TNA). An additional 11 volume finding aid
8
and inventory, published in 1993, is indispensable. Identifying the author and the recipient
of papers can be difficult, due to the practice of addressing and signing papers by official
position, rather than name, and initialling papers on behalf of others. Many of the papers are
in a poor physical condition. However, those that have survived have been kept in their
original context, as working files of the relevant individuals or departments. The official
archives were most useful in combination with other sources, for example to check facts and
claims made by individuals in memoirs or oral history interviews, but in some documents the
subjects explicitly expressed what they aimed to achieve in Germany, or discussed this with
others, for example in personal correspondence, speeches or newspaper and magazine
articles. These were useful as they related directly to the questions posed in the thesis, but,
as with all types of source, statements of opinion had to be treated with caution. The authors
may not have been expressing their own views, but conforming to an official line, writing or
saying what they believed the recipient wished to hear, or writing a speech to be delivered by
someone else. Understanding the context could reveal issues which were not apparent from
reading the document in isolation.
Personal papers
Collections of personal papers in the public archives have been used extensively where they
exist. These were very variable, some extensive including a diary, personal correspondence,
and official papers, others little more than a few newspaper cuttings. The Montgomery and
7
Ian D. Turner (ed.), Reconstruction in Post-War Germany: British Occupation Policy and the Western Zones 19451955 (Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd, 1989), pp328-9
8
Adolf M. Birke, Hans Booms, Otto Merker (eds) in cooperation with the Deutsches Historisches Institut, London,
Niedersächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Hannover, Akten der britischen Militärregierung in Deutschland –
Sachinventar 1945-1955 / Control Commission for Germany British Element – Inventory 1945-1955 (Munich, New
Providence, London, Paris: K.G. Saur, 1993)
259
Bishop papers at the Imperial War Museum (hereafter IWM) are in excellent condition, well
catalogued and include much relevant information. Sholto Douglas’ papers, in the same
archive, contain little on his time in Germany, apart from those used to write his
autobiography. Robertson did not keep personal papers, but a reasonably full collection of
his official papers has been preserved at TNA. Good collections of personal papers exist for
three of the four civilian diplomats and administrators. Berry’s papers are held at Somerset
Heritage Centre (SHC) and Bath Record Office (BRO) and those of Austen Albu and Harold
Ingrams, at Churchill College Archives (CAC). Flanders’ papers at the Modern Record
Centre (MRC) contain little on Germany, but were useful in providing information on his prewar connections with German socialists. In the case of Ingrams, many papers are out of
context, not held as part of an original file and are unsigned and undated. However, crossreferencing with documents in TNA enabled some of these to be identified as first drafts of
papers submitted to an official working party on democratic development in Germany, and
were useful in identifying his role and intentions.
Oral History
Oral history sources were used particularly for the ‘young men’ considered in part 3, for
whom there is less material in the public archives compared with both the senior officers and
civilian diplomats and administrators. Thexton and Palliser were still alive when research for
the study was undertaken, (though unfortunately both have now died), which meant that it
was possible to interview them, but not members of the other groups who were all much
older.
It is possible that some personal bias was introduced in the two interviews I conducted for
this study, despite my best endeavours to follow best interviewing practice, remain objective
and ask open-ended questions. On the other hand, the interviews enabled me to crosscheck information obtained from other sources, probe for further information, interrogate my
sources directly, and ask questions directly related to the themes examined in the thesis.
Both interviews have been transcribed, approved by the interviewees, and the recordings
260
and transcripts lodged at the IWM Sound Archive, where they have been catalogued and
form part of the collection open to other researchers and the general public.
9
Oral history interviews were also used for the other two selected ‘young officers’, though not
as the principal source. Michael Howard was interviewed for the IWM Sound Archive in
2008,
10
and subsequently published a book on his experiences in occupied Germany,
comprising his letters to his parents, reprinted verbatim, with a commentary providing
background and context.
11
This enabled three types of source to be cross-referenced: the
letters; an interview; and his written commentary. With one or two minor exceptions, the
three accounts were fully consistent. On the other hand, two journalistic interviews with John
Chaloner, conducted by the German news magazine Der Spiegel, were less reliable.
12
The
interviewers asked questions on specific topics, based on a published history of Der
Spiegel,
13
rather than open ended questions or asking him to tell his story chronologically.
Fortunately it was possible to discover some material on Chaloner and the creation of Der
Spiegel in the National Archives, and I was able to consult an extensive collection of
contemporary documents in the private business archive of Der Spiegel in Hamburg. Cross
checking the factual information in the interviews with contemporary documents revealed
inconsistencies and possible errors.
14
Chaloner was in poor health at the time and died three
months after the second interview. However, the interviews were still useful, when used
together with other sources, in providing evidence of his intentions when he created the
magazine.
The Imperial War Museum Sound Archive
There were many more young British officers in occupied Germany than there were Military
Governors, generals or senior administrators, so to compensate for the small sample of
‘young men with no adult experience but war’, and the possibility of personal bias introduced
in my interviews with Palliser and Thexton, I consulted the comprehensive collection of
experiences of conflict held by the Imperial War Museum Sound Archive (IWM SA) to ensure
9
IWM Sound Archive, accession numbers 30895 (J.M.G. Thexton) and 32236/4 (Michael Palliser)
IWM Sound Archive accession number 31405 (Michael Howard)
11
Michael Howard, Otherwise Occupied: Letters home from the ruins of Nazi Germany (Tiverton: Old Street
Publishing, 2010)
12
Der Spiegel Archive, interviews with John Chaloner, 21 Oct. 2003 and 2 Nov. 2006
13
Leo Brawand, Der Spiegel - ein Besatzungskind: Wie die Pressefreiheit nach Deutschland kam (Hamburg: EVA
Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 2007)
14
For this reason the interviews with Der Spiegel were not used as a source for factual information unless confirmed
by other sources, such as written documents in TNA or DSA
10
261
that findings based on detailed research into four individuals were reasonably representative
of this group as a whole.
The IWM SA was started in 1972 and is now one of the largest collections of its type in the
world, comprising over 50,000 hours of recorded material.
15
The interviewing and collection
policy of the archive is inclusive, aiming to record a cross-section of material from all ranks,
civilians and soldiers, women and men, conscientious objectors and war heroes. Until
recently, the archive has not targeted the British occupation of Germany or the post-war
period and so had no agenda which might have biased the material in any direction. One
objective of the archive has been to collect experiences of all World War Two campaigns,
with interviewees generally recruited through veterans’ and regimental associations.
16
Much
of the material on post-war Germany appeared at the end of these interviews, after they had
recounted their pre-and post-war experiences. Reference to a larger collection enabled me
to validate if evidence obtained from the four ‘young men’ examined in detail was generally
representative of this age cohort, although, as with all oral history collections, the archive’s
selection process and interviewing style will have introduced some bias, and the interviewers
did not probe on some specific subjects as much as I would have liked.
The catalogue was searched for interviews with British men and women who served in
Germany or Austria between 1945 and 1948 with either the armed forces or the Control
Commission and aged between 18 and 32 at the end of the war. All interviews which met
these criteria were consulted, except for a small number excluded as being outside the
scope of the study or of such poor quality as to be unusable.
17
The resulting selection of
twenty men and one woman covered a wide range of family and educational backgrounds,
wartime experiences and roles in Germany. There was a bias towards the officer and
professional and middle classes, but this is consistent with the aim of the thesis to identify
the views of those with authority, power and influence. Only one of the interviewees was a
woman, but this reflected the gender balance among British people in occupied Germany.
15
Phone conversation with Richard McDonough, Curator, IWM Sound Archive, 9 Feb. 2011
Ibid
17
Interviews with German-speaking Jewish exiles and British servicemen and women who arrived in Germany in
1948 for the Berlin airlift were excluded as being outside the scope of the study. Two further interviews were
rejected due to poor quality recordings and one because data relating to the subject’s time in Germany had not
been digitised and the original tapes could not be found.
16
262
The twenty-one IWM Sound Archive interviews used in this study were recorded by IWM fulltime or trained freelance staff between 1988 and 2008.
18
Interviewers applied a consistent,
open and non-prescriptive ‘life history’ approach, asking first about family background and
education, before moving on to wartime and post-war experiences, which made it possible to
collect data and analyse it across a number of interviews. They encouraged the interviewees
to tell the story of their lives, not restricting them to a particular theme or time period as, in
the view of the curator, it was impossible to know what future historians would consider
important. The guidelines given to interviewers were to allow people to say whatever they
remembered in their own time and try to capture the unique experience of the individual;
being flexible as to the style of the interview, asking open ended questions, and using any
specialist knowledge the interviewer might possess to decide how best to formulate
questions, not challenging apparent errors or contradictions or probing too deeply into
personal feelings or emotions.
19
Unlike most other European countries, Britain’s role in the war and its immediate aftermath
has, in most respects, been remembered with pride and veterans and their memories are
generally respected. The IWM interviewees were describing their experiences as they
remembered them, the interview provided a structure and context which may have led them
to emphasise some things and neglect others and the passage of time may have led them to
forget things or remember them incorrectly. On some sensitive subjects, such as sexual
relationships with German women, they tended to speak about what others had done, rather
than relate their personal experiences. In general, however, they appeared to answer
truthfully to the best of their knowledge. Most gave considered replies to questions, spoke
freely and openly about their own experiences and were willing to provide their personal
opinions on difficult subjects, such as personal injuries, the destruction caused by Allied
bombing and individual relationships with German civilians. Despite very little prompting from
the interviewers, there was extensive reference to many of the issues considered in this
study. Over 75% (17/21) referred to individual relationships with the local German population
and over 50% (12/21) spoke about their attitudes to Russian soldiers or Displaced Persons.
Between 25%-50% mentioned the Black Market (9/21) and the destruction they saw in post18
19
Phone conversation with Richard McDonough, Curator, IWM Sound Archive, 9 Feb. 2011
Ibid
263
war Germany (7/21) and four (4/21) referred to concentration camps, war crimes or the
Holocaust.
20
An analysis of interviewees by year of birth, education, rank, role in Germany
and wartime experience is provided in Appendix B.
Other sources
Other sources were consulted where appropriate to provide further background and context,
gain a greater understanding of the selected individuals or explore more fully the crosscutting themes considered in the thesis. These included the British Zone Review,
21
parliamentary debates, Cabinet and Foreign Office papers at TNA, accounts by visiting
politicians and journalists, contemporary newspaper articles and two semi-autobiographical
novels written by Chaloner. A full list is provided in the bibliography.
20
No conclusion can be drawn from the small number making explicit reference to the Holocaust. It can be assumed
that all had heard reports of war crimes and atrocities, but few would have had personal experience of the liberation
of the camps.
21
The official fortnightly review of the activities of the Control Commission and Military Government.
264
Appendix B
Analysis of IWM Sound Archive interviewees
265
Name
Born
School
University /
Higher ed.
Wartime service
Dates in
Germany
Highest
rank
Position /
role
WW2 experience
Garrood
1919
Cranleigh
None
Kings Own / Gurkha Rifles
1945-6
Officer
‘Staff duties’
France (1940), India,
Cyprus, Egypt, Italy
Mallabar
1924
Not known
None
Not known / signals
1945-6
NCO /
Corporal
Army
Normandy, NW Europe
James
1923
Latymer
None
Navy
1946-9
Officer
Naval officer
Arctic convoys,
Mediterranean
Taylor
1920
‘Minor public
school’
None
Navy
1947-9
Officer
Naval officer
Not known
Bicknell
1924
Radley
Oxford
Intelligence officer in Air Ministry
1945
Officer
Russian
interpreter
UK
Falle
1919
‘Boarding school’
Jersey
None
Navy
1946-8
Officer
Interpreter
Japanese POW
Lucas
1916
Not known
None
RAF
1947-8
NCO /
Corporal
RAF ground
crew
North Africa, Italy
Dye
1923
Grammar school
Birkbeck
Signals / Naval gunnery /
Intelligence corps
1945-8
NCO /
Sergeant
Denazification
Normandy (wounded)
Brown
1917
Not known
None
Royal Corps of Signals
1945-??
Officer
Austria,
Signals officer
UK
Bland
1913
Not known
Liverpool
Royal Engineers
1945
Officer
COGA,
Intelligence
India, Burma
266
(Stephen)
Hastings
1921
Eton
Sandhurst
Scots Guards / SAS / SOE
1945-8
Officer /
Captain
Skiing
instructor
North Africa / France,
Italy
Fisher
1913
Not known
Teacher
training
Friends Ambulance Unit
1945-8
n/a
FAU / BFES
UK. Ethiopia
Gregg-Rowbury
1925
Not known
Teacher
training
RAF air crew
1947-9
NCO /
sergeant
CCG / DPs
UK, Bombers
Greenhalgh
1914
Grammar school
None
War Office
1945
NCO /
sergeant
Personnel
selection
UK
Norman
1916
Grammar school
None
Home Office
1947-60s
n/a
Denazification/
public safety
UK
(Martin)
Hastings
1916
Not known
Not known
‘Armoured division’
1945-??
Officer
Army
Malta, Italy, NW Europe
Chambers
1924
Not known
None
Royal Engineers
1945-7
NCO /
sergeant?
Army
NW Europe
Travett
1919
Not known
None
Not known
1945-??
NCO /
Corporal
Army
Malta, Sicily, NW Europe
Heppell
1922
Grammar School
None
Royal Corps of Signals / Indian
Ordnance Corps / Gurkhas
1946
Officer
Judge Adv.
General's dept
India
Ashcombe
1925
Latymer
None
RAF
1945-7
Leading
aircraftman
Welfare
Normandy, NW Europe
Harland
1920
Bootham
Oxford
Salvation Army Unit
1946-7
n/a
DPs
UK
267
References made to themes discussed in the study
Name
Destruction
Black market
Russians / DPs
War crimes /
Holocoaust
Relationships
with Germans
Garrood
No
Yes
No
No
No
Mallabar
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
James
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Taylor
No
No
No
No
Yes
Bicknell
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Falle
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Lucas
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Dye
No
No
No
No
Yes
Brown
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Bland
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Hastings (Stephen)
No
No
No
No
Yes
Fisher
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Gregg-Rowbury
No
No
Yes
No
No
Greenhalgh
No
Yes
No
No
No
Norman
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Hastings (Martin)
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Chambers
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Travett
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Heppell
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Ashcombe
No
No
No
No
No
Harland
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Total
7/21
9/21
12/21
4/21
17/21
268
Bibliography
1 The National Archives (TNA)
The main series are:
FO 1005 – 1082: Control Commission for Germany (British Element)
FO 371: General Correspondence of the Foreign Office relating to Germany:
FO 935-946: Control Office for Germany and Austria (COGA)
An 11 volume inventory of the Control Commission files was published in 1993:
Adolf M. Birke, Hans Booms, Otto Merker (eds) in cooperation with the Deutsches
Historisches Institut, London, Niedersächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Hannover, Akten der
britischen Militärregierung in Deutschland – Sachinventar 1945-1955 / Control Commission
for Germany British Element – Inventory 1945-1955 (Munich, New Providence, London,
Paris: K.G. Saur, 1993)
Files consulted include:
FO 371/46933
FO 371/55578
FO 371/55614
FO 371/31500
FO 371/46730
FO 371/46731
FO 371/46732
FO 371/46733
FO 371/46734
FO 371/46735
FO 371/46736
FO 371/46853
FO 371/46873
FO 371/46973
FO 371/55363
FO 371/55364
FO 371/55578
FO 371/55588
FO 371/55589
FO 371/55590
FO 371/55591
FO 371/55593
FO 371/55611
FO 371/55612
FO 371/64357
FO 371/64929
FO 371/70487
FO 371/70713
FO 371/70845
Germany 1945
Germany 1946
Germany file no. 143
Foreign Research and Press Office 1942
Germany file no 24
Germany file no 24
Germany file no 24
Germany file no 24
Germany file no 24
Germany file no 24
Germany file no 24
Applications to visit Germany
Public Pronouncements on Germany
Germany 1945
Berlin Fusion campaign
Fusion of political parties in Germany
History of the Control Commission for Germany
Germany 1946, file no 131
Germany 1946, file no 131
Germany 1946, file no 131
Germany 1946, file no 131
Germany 1946, file no 131
Germany 1946, file no 143
Germany
Maintenance of illegitimate children of British personnel
Internal Affairs, Germany
Political and economic reports, 1948
Education
Illegitimate children fathered by British servicemen
FO 936/236
FO 936/425
FO 936/653
FO 936/693
FO 936/741
FO 936/743
FO 936/744
FO 937/136
CC for Germany, Review of Basic Policy
Appointment of successor to Sir Sholto Douglas
Loss of valuables from Schloss Bückeburg
Relations between CCG personnel and Germans
Operation "Sparkler" and large scale black market activities
Allegations of cases of corruption in CCG British Zone
Black market allegations
Illegitimate children
FO 1005/372
FO 1005/372
Control Council meetings and agendas – 1945
Control Council meetings and agendas – 1946
269
FO 1005/739
FO 1005/1354
FO 1005/1646
FO 1005/1648
FO 1005/1697
FO 1014/8
FO 1014/15
FO 1014/192
FO 1014/890
FO 1014/897
FO 1014/904
FO 1020/683
Information Policy Control Directives (1945)
Minutes of Regional Commissioners' conferences, 1946
Monthly reports for Hamburg
Monthly reports for Hamburg
Main HQ papers
Berry's weekly conferences in Hamburg
Regional Commissioners
Daily Express newspaper article
Hamburg Project - policy
Hamburg Project
Hamburg Project
Marriage policy in Austria
FO 1030/46
FO 1030/97
FO 1030/125
FO 1030/131
FO 1030/148
FO 1030/151
FO 1030/164
FO 1030/170
FO 1030/171
FO 1030/172
FO 1030/173
FO 1030/174
FO 1030/188
FO 1030/288
FO 1030/323
FO 1030/328
FO 1030/329
Anglo-German relations
Report to Foreign Secretary at the end of 1948
Memoranda with Montgomery
Anglo-German relations
Directives and Memoranda issued by Military Governor
Commander-in-Chief's residence
Press and public relations
Commander in Chief’s lecture to the Imperial Defence College
Commander-in-Chief's residence
Social Contact with Germans
Establishment & strengths, March - April 1947
Marriages with ex-enemy nationals
Housing in British Zone
Correspondence between Montgomery and Bishop on “The Problem
in Germany”
Non-fraternisation
Correspondence between Robertson and Street
Correspondence between Robertson and Corps Commanders and
Regional Commissioners
Correspondence between Robertson and Corps Commanders and
Regional Commissioners
Robertson's general correspondence
Robertson's speeches & broadcasts
Robertson's correspondence with heads of divisions
Robertson’s correspondence with Corps commanders and regional
commissioners
Robertson’s Correspondence with C-in-C
Press conferences
DMG's talks and speeches
FO 1032/1272
FO 1032/1370
FO 1032/1371
FO 1032/1461
FO 1035/8
FO 1046/201
FO 1049/1364
FO 1049/2113
FO 1049/2114
Overcrowding at Hamburg
Schaumburg Lippe
Schaumburg Lippe
Schaumburg Lippe
Administrative organisation
Schaumburg Lippe
Politicians and Press, control of
German Political Dept files
German Political Dept files
FO 1050/130
FO 1050/138
FO 1050/140
FO 1050/149
FO 1050/160
FO 1050/423
ALG branch liaison with Political Division
Evolution of Control of government
Draft Directive from COS
Regional gov - Meetings of Oberpraesidenten
Working Party on Democratic development
Military Govt Directive on Administrative, Local and Regional
government
Control of German Ministry of the interior - Working Party
FO 1030/289
FO 1030/303
FO 1030/306
FO 1030/307
FO 1030/308
FO 1030/315
FO 1030/320
FO 1030/322
FO 1050/806
270
FO 1050/1290
FO 1050/1312
FO 1050/1440
FO 1051/224
FO 1056/16
FO 1056/3
FO 1056/318
FO 1056/27
FO 1056/37
FO 1056/540
FO 1060/2793
FO 1067/71
Education for Citizenship
Anglo-German discussion groups
SHAEF Handbook
Structure of German Government
General Bishop's correspondence
Broadcasts over British Forces Network
Suppression of newspapers and other publications
Information Control Policy
Press – licensing
Goronwy Rees tour diary
Register of Military Government court, Hamburg
Hamburg Project
FO 608/129
Bound volume of reports for the British delegation at the Peace
Conference, 1919
WO 220/220
Handbook for Military Government in Germany prior to defeat or
surrender
SHAEF Handbook Governing Policy and Procedure for the Military
Occupation of Germany
Appointment of Robertson as Montgomery's deputy
WO 220/221
WO 258/83
The National Archives has republished the following item held in the archive:
Germany 1944: The British Soldier’s Pocketbook, with a foreword by Charles Wheeler and
introduction by Edward Hampshire (Kew, Richmond, Surrey: The National Archives, 2006)
2 Personal papers
Bath Record Office (BRO)
Berry papers
Churchill College Archives (CAC)
Albu papers (AP)
Hynd Papers (HP)
Ingrams papers (IP)
Modern Records Centre, Warwick University (MRC)
Flanders papers (FP)
Socialist Vanguard Group papers (SVG)
Imperial War Museum documents collection (IWM)
Montgomery papers (BLM)
Bishop papers (AB)
Somerset Heritage Centre (SHC)
Berry papers
271
3 Oral history interviews
Oral History Interview with General Lord Robertson of Oakridge,
11 August 1970 by Theodore A. Wilson (Harry S. Truman Library & Museum)
[www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/robertsn.htm accessed 12 May 2010]
Imperial War Museum Sound Archive (IWM SA)
Interviews undertaken by Christopher Knowles for this thesis:
J.M.G. Thexton, accession no. 30895
Michael Palliser, accession no. 32236/4
Interviews undertaken by IWM SA staff:
Michael Howard, accession no. 31405
Bernard Garrood, accession no. 16307
Ronald Mallabar, accession no. 11211
George Philip Henry James, accession no. 14837
Kenneth Taylor, accession no. 23230
Frank Arthur Bicknell, accession no. 23844
Samuel Falle, accession no. 25207
Alfred Leslie (Les) Lucas, accession no. 29446
Ralph Frederick Dye, accession no. 20064
John Isaac Godfrey Brown, accession no. 11035
Oliver Bland, accession no. 19606
Stephen Lewis Edmonstone Hastings, accession no. 27455
Bernard Fisher, accession no. 10653
Eric Gregg-Rowbury, accession no. 30418
Walter Greenhalgh, accession no. 11187
Annie (Nancie) Norman, accession no. 16705
Martin Cosmo Hastings, accession no. 20733
James Samuel Chambers, accession no. 11329
Arthur Norman Travett, accession no. 10462
James Robert Heppell, accession no. 16778
John Ashcombe, accession no. 23187
Richard Harland, accession no. 12920
4 Other primary sources
Published collections of documents
M.E. Pelly and H.J.Yasamee (eds.), assisted by G.Bennett, Documents on British Policy
Overseas, Series 1, Volume 5, Germany and Western Europe 11 August – 31 December
1945 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1990)
Beate Ruhm von Oppen (ed.), Documents on Germany under Occupation 1945-1954
(London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1955)
Der Spiegel Archive (DSA)
Diese Woche dummy issues and Nos. 1-5, 16 November 1946 - 21 December 1946
General correspondence relating to the magazines Diese Woche and Der Spiegel
Original tapes and transcripts of interviews with John Chaloner held on 21 October 2003 and
2 November 2006
272
Hansard
Parliamentary debates on 26 October 1945, 9 April 1946, 10 May 1946, 25 July 1946, 22
October 1946, 14 November 1946, 5 February 1947
5 Contemporary accounts, memoirs and autobiographies
Konrad Adenauer, Memoirs 1945-53, translated by Beate Ruhm von Oppen (London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966)
Austen Albu, Back Bench Technocrat, unpublished autobiography, Churchill Archives
Centre, AP15
Ruth Andreas-Friedrich, Battleground Berlin: Diaries 1945-1948, translated by Anna
Boerresen with an afterword by Jörg Drews (New York: Paragon House Publishers, 1990).
Originally published in German as Schauplatz Berlin: Tagebuchaufzeichnungen 1945-1948
Noel Annan, Changing Enemies: The Defeat and Regeneration of Germany (London: Harper
Collins, 1995)
‘Apex’, The Uneasy Triangle: Four Years of the Occupation (London: John Murray, 1931)
Hannah Arendt, ‘The Aftermath of Nazi Rule: Report from Germany’, Commentary, No.10,
(October, 1950), pp342-353
Gerda Erika Baker, Shadow of War (Oxford, Batavia, Sydney: Lion Publishing Ltd, 1990)
Christabel Bielenberg, The Road Ahead (London: Corgi Books, 1993)
Robert Birley, The German Problem and the responsibility of Britain. The Burge
lecture (London: SCM Press, 1947)
Alec Bishop, Look Back with Pleasure, (Beckley, Sussex: unpublished, 1971)
Imperial War Museum, AB1
Fenner Brockway, German Diary (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1946)
W. Byford-Jones, Berlin Twilight (London: Hutchinson, 1947)
Amy Buller, Darkness over Germany (London, New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green and
Co, 1943)
Alec Cairncross, A Country to Play with: Level of Industry negotiations in Berlin 1945-46
(Gerrards Cross: Colin Smythe Limited, 1987)
Paul Chambers, ‘Post-war German finances’, International Affairs, Vol.24, No.3, (July 1948),
pp364-377
George Clare, Berlin Days (London: Macmillan, 1989)
Lucius D Clay, Decision in Germany (London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1950)
Henry E. Collins, Mining memories and Musings: Autobiography of a Mining Engineer
(Ashire Publishing Ltd, 1985)
Hugh Dalton, High Tide and After (London: Frederick Muller Ltd, 1962)
273
Arthur Geoffrey Dickens, Lübeck Diary (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1947)
Sholto Douglas, Years of Combat: the first volume of the autobiography of Sholto Douglas,
Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Douglas of Kirtleside G.C.B. M.C. D.F.S. (London:
Collins, 1963)
Sholto Douglas with Robert Wright, Years of Command: the second volume of the
autobiography of Sholto Douglas, Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Douglas of Kirtleside
G.C.B. M.C. D.F.S. (London: Collins, 1966)
Ernst Fraenkel, Military Occupation and the Rule of Law: Occupation Government in the
Rhineland, 1918-1923 (London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1944)
W.G. Friedmann, The Allied Military Government of Germany (London: Stevens & Sons,
1947)
David Garnett, The Secret History of PWE: The Political Warfare Executive 1939-1945
(London: St Ermin’s Press, 2002)
G.E.R. Gedye, The Revolver Republic: France’s Bid for the Rhine (London: J.W. Arrowsmith
Limited, 1930)
G.E.R. Gedye, Fallen Bastions: The Central European Tragedy (London: Victor Gollancz
Ltd, 1939)
Victor Gollancz, In Darkest Germany (London: Victor Gollancz Limited, 1947)
Victor Gollancz, Shall our Children Live or Die? A Reply to Lord Vansittart on the German
Problem (London: Victor Gollancz Limited, 1942)
Patrick Gordon Walker, The Lid Lifts (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1945)
Patrick Gordon Walker, Political Diaries 1932-1971: edited with an introduction by Robert
Pearce (London: The Historians’ Press, 1991)
Robert Graves, Goodbye to All That (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1960). First published
by Jonathan Cape, 1929
Hugh Greene, The Third Floor Front (London: The Bodley Head, 1969)
Renate Greenshields, Lucky Girl Goodbye and its Sequel A Bit of Time (Hawkchurch,
Devon: Renate Greenshields, 2006)
Paul Hagen, Erobert, nicht Befreit’ Das Deutsche Volk im Ersten Besatzungsjahr (New York:
American Association for a Democratic Germany, 1946)
Denis Healey, The Time of my Life (London: Michael Joseph, 1989)
Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Horrocks, A Full Life (London: Leo Cooper 1974). Revised and
extended edition. First published by William Collins, 1960
Michael Howard, Otherwise Occupied: Letters home from the ruins of Nazi Germany
(Tiverton: Old Street Publishing, 2010)
Harold Ingrams, ‘Building democracy in Germany’, The Quarterly Review, No.572, (April
1947), pp208-22
Harold Ingrams, Seven across the Sahara (London: John Murray, 1949)
Yvone Kirkpatrick, The Inner Circle (London: Macmillan, 1959)
274
Werner Klatt, ‘Food and Farming in Germany: I. Food and Nutrition’, International Affairs,
Vol.26, No.1, (January 1950), pp45-58
Werner Klatt, ‘Food and Farming in Germany: II. Farming and Land Reform’, International
Affairs, Vol.26, No.2, April 1950, pp195-207
Helen Liddell, ‘Education in occupied Germany’, International Affairs, Vol.24, No.1, (January
1948), pp30-62
Gordon Macready, In the Wake of the Great (London: William Clowes & Sons, 1965)
Ethel Mannin, German Journey (London: Jarrolds Publishers (London) Ltd, 1948)
Violet Markham, Return Passage (London: Oxford University Press, 1953)
Violet Markham, A Woman’s Watch on the Rhine (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1921)
Drew Middleton, The Struggle for Germany (London & New York: Allan Wingate, 1949)
Sir Walter Moberly, The Crisis in the University (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1949)
Bernard Montgomery, The Memoirs of Field-Marshal The Viscount Montgomery of Alamein,
K.G. (London: Collins, 1958)
J.H. Morgan, Assize of Arms: being the story of the Disarmament of Germany and her
Rearmament (1919-1939) (London: Methuen, 1945)
Alan Moorehead, Montgomery (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1946)
L. Mosley, Report from Germany (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1945)
Lord Pakenham, Born to Believe (London: Jonathan Cape, 1953)
B.U. Ratchford & Wm. D. Ross, Berlin Reparations Assignment: Round One of the Berlin
Peace Settlement (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1947)
Goronwy Rees, Brief Encounters (London: Chatto & Windus, 1974)
Goronwy Rees: Sketches in Autobiography: ‘A Bundle of Sensations’ and ‘A Chapter of
Accidents’ with ‘A Winter in Berlin’, a further autobiographical essay, edited with introduction
and notes by John Harris (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2001)
B.T. Reynolds, Prelude to Hitler (London: Jonathan Cape, 1933)
Brian Robertson, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, ‘A Miracle? Potsdam 1945 – Western
Germany 1965’, International Affairs, Vol.41, No.3, (1965), pp401-410
W.A. Robson, ‘Local Government in Occupied Germany’, The Political Quarterly, Vol.XIV,
No.4, Oct-Dec 1945, pp277-287
Ernst von Salomon, The Answers of Ernst von Salomon to the 131 Questions in the Allied
Military Government ‘Fragebogen’, English edition translated by Constantine Fitzgibbon with
a preface by Goronwy Rees (London: Putnam, 1954). First published in Germany in 1951 as
Der Fragebogen
Mary Saran, Never Give Up (London: Oswald Wolff, 1976)
Stephen Spender, European Witness (London: Hamish Hamilton 1946)
William Strang, Home and Abroad (London: Andre Deutsch, 1956)
275
Michael Thomas, Deutschland, England über alles, Rückkehr als britische Besatzungsoffizier
(Berlin: Siedler Verlag, 1984)
Ferdinand Tuohy, Occupied: 1918-1930: a Postscript to the Western Front (London:
Thornton Butterworth, 1931)
Katharine Tynan, Life in the Occupied Area (London: Hutchinson, 1925)
Robert Vansittart, Black Record (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1941)
Cecil Weir, Civilian Assignment (London: Methuen & Co, 1953)
Anthony Weymouth, Germany: Disease and Treatment (London: Hutchinson, 1945)
6 Literary works and fiction
John Bayley, In Another Country (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955)
John Chaloner, Occupational Hazard (Wallington, Surrey: Severn House Publishers, 1991)
John Chaloner, To Europe with Love (London: Severn House Publishers, 1984). First
published 1969 by Dobson Books Ltd as Family Hold Back
Colin MacInnes, To the Victors the Spoils (London: Alison and Busby, 1986). First published
in 1950
7 Web resources
Bishop Montgomery: a memoir, (London: The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in
Foreign Parts, 1933)
[http://anglicanhistory.org/england/hhmontgomery1933/ accessed 6 Aug 2009]
Antone Capet, ‘“The Creeds of the Devil’ Churchill between the Two Totalitarianisms, 1917 –
1945”, Finest Hour Online, 31 August 2009
[http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-houronline/725-the-creeds-of-the-devil-churchill-between-the-two-totalitarianisms-1917-1945
accessed 26 September 2009]
Cooper, John Xiros, ‘“The Crow on the Crematorium Chimney”: Germany 1945’, ESC:
English Studies in Canada, Vol.30, no.3, (2004), pp129-144
http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/ESC/issue/view/24
Maria Hoehn, ‘Review of Petra Goedde, GIs and Germans: Culture, Gender and Foreign
Relations, 1945-1949’, H-German, H-Net Reviews (October, 2003)
[http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=8249 accessed 13 May 2010]
J.G.T. Shipman, ‘Obituary, Doreen Ingrams 1906-1997’, The British-Yemeni Society
[http://www.al-bab.com/bys/obits/ingrams.htm accessed 21 March 2013]
8 Dictionary of National Biography
Bernard Crick, ‘Robson, William Alexander (1895–1980)’, Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2010
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/31622, accessed 21
March 2013]
276
Hugh Greene, ‘Gedye, (George) Eric Rowe (1890–1970)’, rev. Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/33362 accessed 29 April
2012]
Matthew Grimley, ‘Moberly, Sir Walter Hamilton (1881–1974)’, Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2011 [http://0www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/31451, accessed 28 Aug 2012]
Nigel Hamilton, ‘Montgomery, Bernard Law [Monty], first Viscount Montgomery of Alamein
(1887–1976)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004;
online edn, May 2008
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/31460, accessed 7 Aug
2012]
Richard Hyman, ‘Flanders, Allan David (1910–1973)’, Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, Oct 2009
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/31112, accessed 21
March 2013]
Vincent Orange, ‘Coningham, Sir Arthur (1895–1948)’, Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2011
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/32529, accessed 4 July
2012]
Vincent Orange, ‘Douglas, (William) Sholto, Baron Douglas of Kirtleside (1893–1969)’,
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan
2011
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/32876, accessed 12 June
2012]
L.G. Parsons, ‘Barling, Sir (Harry) Gilbert, baronet (1855-1940), rev. Jeffrey S. Reznick,
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/30593, accessed 13 May
2010]
Robert Pearce, ‘Walker, Patrick, Chrestien Gordon, Baron Gordon-Walker (1907-1980),
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan
2008
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/31161, accessed 17 May
2010]
Edward Pickering, ‘Barnetson, William Denholm Baron Barnetson (1917-1981)’, rev. Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/30793, accessed 12 May
2010]
Charles Richardson, ‘Robertson, Brian Hubert, first Baron Robertson of Oakridge (1896–
1974)’, rev. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online
edn, May 2006
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/31616, accessed 7 Aug
2009]
Roger T. Stearn, ‘Ingrams, (William) Harold (1897–1973)’, Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, online edn, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004
[http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/view/article/46523, accessed 21
March 2013]
277
9 Newspapers and magazines
British Zone Review, 29 September 1945 to 20 September 1949
Socialist Commentary, March 1945 to December 1949
Rudolf Augstein, ‘Nach Göttingen könnte ich immer noch: Vierzig Jahre Nachrichtenmagazin
DER SPIEGEL’, Der Spiegel, 29 December 1986
Rudolf Augstein, ‘So wurden wir angefangen: Rudolf Augstein über die Gründung des
SPIEGEL 1946’, Der Spiegel, 11 November 2002
Trevor Blore, ‘£160 million a year - to teach the Germans to despise us’, Daily Mirror, 8 July
1946
Harry Bohrer, ‘Es wird großen Spaß machen’, Spiegel Almanach, 1948
Jochen Bölsche, ‘Nachruf: John Seymour Chaloner’, Der Spiegel, 17 February 2007
Leo Brawand, ‘Wenn schon Pressefreiheit, dann aber gleich richtig: Vor 40 Jahren: wie der
SPIEGEL entstand’, Der Spiegel, 29 December 1986
Ian Cobain, ‘How T-Force abducted Germany's best brains for Britain’, The Guardian, 29
August 2007
Richard Greenhough, ‘Spotlight on a prince’s fabulous castle’, Daily Mail, 8 July 1947
Hans Hielscher, ‘Der Anfang. Wollen Sie mitmachen? Wie DIESE WOCHE entstand und
daraus DER SPIEGEL wurde’, Der Spiegel, 15 January 1997
Douglas Martin, ‘Ernst Bulova, 98, Founder of Camp with a Free Spirit’, New York Times, 28
January 2001
Dr. William A. Robson, ‘Local Government in Germany: A background to municipal
elections’, The Times, 11 September 1946, p5
Britta Sandberg, ‘“Den Briten die Leviten Lesen” Der ehemalige Redakteur Leo Brawand, 82,
über die Anfänge des SPIEGEL’, Der Spiegel, 8 January 2007, p92
Jack Straw, ‘The Briton who put workers in the boardroom; General Lord Robertson of
Oakridge’, The Times, 3 July 1989
Obituary, John Chaloner, ‘Distributor of foreign journals who, with Der Spiegel, reinstated
press freedom in Germany’, The Times, 16 February 2007
Obituary, Mr W.H. Ingrams, ‘Colonial administrator and expert on Arabian affairs’, The
Times, 12 December 1972, p19
‘Bring home these men: corrupt, lazy, they discredit our rule’, Daily Express, 4 September
1947
‘Conduct of British in Germany: Chaplain’s criticism’, The Times, 9 August 1946, p3
‘German Advances in Science’, The Times, 10 December 1946, p2
‘Profile – General Robertson’, Observer, 8 December 1946
‘Smith and the secrets of Schmidt’, Daily Express, 9 October 1946
278
10 Secondary sources
Books and articles
Michael Ahrens, Die Briten in Hamburg: Besatzerleben 1945-1958 (Munich and Hamburg:
Dölling und Gallitz Verlag, 2011)
Alan Allport, Demobbed (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009)
Peter Alter, Out of the Third Reich: Refugee Historians in Post-War Britain (London & New
York: I.B. Tauris, 1998)
Noel Annan, Our Age: Portrait of a Generation (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1990)
Christian Bailey, ‘The European Discourse in Germany, 1939-1950: Three Case Studies’,
German History, Vol.28, No.4, (December 2010), pp453-478
Michael Balfour and John Mair, Four Power Control in Germany and Austria 1945-1946
(Oxford: Survey of International Affairs 1939-1946, Oxford University Press, 1956)
Michael Balfour, ‘Re-education in Germany after 1945’, German History, No.5, (1987), pp2534
Alan Bance (ed.), The Cultural Legacy of the British Occupation in Germany (Stuttgart:
Verlag Hans-Dieter Heinz, Akademischer Verlag Stuttgart, 1997)
Dagmar Barnouw, Germany 1945: Views of War and Violence (Bloomington & Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press, 1996)
Colin Baxter, Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery 1887-1976: A Selected Bibliography
(Westport, Connecticut, London: Greenwood Press, 1999)
Correlli Barnett, The Lost Victory (London: Macmillan, 1995)
Hellmut Becker, Willi Eichler, Gustav Heckmann (eds.), Erziehung und Politik: Minna Specht
zu ihrem 80. Geburtstag (Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Öffentliches Leben, 1960)
Stefan Berger, ‘British Socialism as Perceived in Twentieth-Century Germany’ in A.
Bauerkämper & C. Eisenberg (eds.), Great Britain as a Model of Modern Society? German
Views (Augsburg: Wissner, 2006), pp184-202
Volker R. Berghahn and Simone Lässig (eds.), Biography between Structure and Agency:
Central European Lives in International Historiography (New York & Oxford: Berghahn
Books, 2008)
Richard Bessel, Germany 1945: from War to Peace (London, New York, Sydney, Toronto:
Simon & Schuster, 2009)
Richard Bessel, Germany after the First World War (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993)
Richard Bessel and Dirk Schumann (eds.), Life after Death: Approaches to a Cultural and
Social History of Europe during the 1940s and 1950s (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2003)
Frank Biess & Robert G. Moeller (eds.), Histories of the Aftermath: The Legacies of the
Second World War on Europe (New York & Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2010)
279
Adolf Birke and Eva Mayring (eds.), Britische Besatzing in Deutschland: Aktienerschliessung
und Forschungsfelder (London: German Historical Institute, 1992)
Lawrence Black, ‘Social Democracy as a Way of Life: Fellowship and the Socialist Union,
1951-59’, Twentieth Century British History, Vol.10, No.4, (1999), pp499-539
Monica Black, ‘Death and the Making of West Berlin, 1948-1961’, German History, Vol.27,
No.1, (2009), pp6-31
Rebecca Boehling, ‘The Role of Culture in American Relations with Europe: The Case of the
United States’s Occupation of Germany’, Diplomatic History, Vol.23, No.1, (Winter 1999),
pp57-69
Victor Bonham-Carter, Soldier True: the Life and Times of Field-Marshal Sir William
Robertson (London: Frederick Muller Limited, 1963)
Douglas Botting, In the Ruins of the Reich (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1985)
Tom Bower, Blind Eye to Murder: Britain, America and the Purging of Nazi Germany – A
Pledge Betrayed (London: Little, Brown and Company, 1995). First published by Andre
Deutsch, 1981
Tom Bower, Maxwell: The Outsider (London: Mandarin Paperbacks, 1991). First published
by Aurum Press Limited, 1988
Tom Bower, The Paperclip Conspiracy: The Battle for the Spoils and Secrets of Nazi
Germany (London: Paladin, 1988). First published by Michael Joseph Ltd, 1987
Leo Brawand, Der Spiegel - ein Besatzungskind: Wie die Pressefreiheit nach Deutschland
kam (Hamburg: EVA Europäische Verlagsanstalt, 2007)
Leo Brawand, The Spiegel Story (Oxford: Pergamom Press, 1989). First published in
German as Der Spiegel-Story by ECON Verlag GmbH, 1987
Jon Bridgman, The End of the Holocaust: The Liberation of the Camps (London: B.T.
Batsford Ltd, 1990)
Martin Broszat, Klaus-Dietmar Henke and Hans Woller (eds.), Von Stalingrad zur
Währungsreform: Zur Sozialgeschichte des Umbruchs in Deutschland (Munich: R.
Oldenbourg Verlag, 1988)
Alan Bullock, Ernest Bevin: Foreign Secretary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985). First
published by William Heinemann Ltd, 1983
W Burmeister, ‘Were the British too neutral?’ Adult Education, (July 1978), pp98-100
Trevor Burridge, ‘Great Britain and the Dismemberment of Germany at the end of the
Second World War’, International History Review (1981)
Trevor Burridge, British Labour and Hitler’s War (London: Andre Deutsch, 1976)
Ursula Büttner, ‘Not nach der Befreiung. Die Situation der Deutschen Juden in der britischen
Besatzungszone 1945 – 1948’, Das Unrechtsregime Vol.2 (Hamburg: Christians, 1986)
Alec Cairncross, The Price of War: British Policy on German Reparations 1941-49 (Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1986)
Angus Calder, The Myth of the Blitz (London: Jonathan Cape, 1991)
Robert Carden, ‘Before Bizonia: Britain’s economic dilemma in Germany 1945-6’, Journal of
Contemporary History, Vol.14, (1979), pp535-555
280
David Carlton, ‘Churchill and the Two Evil Empires’, Transactions of the Royal Historical
Society (Sixth Series), Vol.11, (2001), pp331-351
Alun Chalfont, Montgomery of Alamein (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1976)
John Cloake, Templer: Tiger of Malaya: The Life of Field Marshal Sir Gerald Templer
(London: Harrap, 1985)
Alon Confino, Paul Betts and Dirk Schumann (eds.), Between Mass Death and Individual
Loss: The Place of the Dead in Twentieth-Century Germany (New York & Oxford: Berghahn
Books, 2008)
Mark Connelly, ‘The British People, the Press and the Strategic Air Campaign against
Germany, 1939-1945’, Contemporary British History, Vol.16, No.2, (Summer 2002), pp39-58
Krista Cowman, ‘Collective Biography’ in Simon Gunn and Lucy Faire (eds.), Research
Methods for History (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012), pp83-100
Sebastian Cox, ‘The Overall Report in Retrospect’, introduction to a reprinted edition of The
Strategic Air War against Germany 1939-1945: Report of the British Bombing Survey Unit
(London & Portland, Oregon: Frank Cass, 1998) ppxxiii-xli
Anne Deighton, The Impossible Peace: Britain, the Division of Germany and the Origins of
the Cold War (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990)
Clive Dewey, Anglo-Indian Attitudes: The Mind of the Indian Civil Service (London & Rio
Grande: The Hambledon Press, 1993)
Frank Donnison, Civil Affairs and Military Government. Central Organisation and Planning
(London: HMSO, 1966)
Frank Donnison, Civil Affairs and Military Government. North-West Europe 1944-1946
(London: HMSO, 1961)
Renate Dopheide, Kiel, Mai 1945: Britische Truppen besetzen die Kriegsmarinestadt (Kiel:
Ludwig, 2007)
R.M. Douglas, 'No Friend of Democracy: The Socialist Vanguard Group 1941-50',
Contemporary British History, Vol.16, No.4, pp51-86
Raymond Ebsworth, Restoring democracy in Germany: The British Contribution (London:
Stevens & Sons Limited, 1960)
Ludwig Eiber, Die Sozialdemokratie in der Emigration (Bonn: J H W Dietz Nachfolger, 1998)
Carolyn Eisenberg, Drawing the line: The American decision to divide Germany, 1944-1949
(Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1996)
Raingard Esser, ‘“Language no obstacle”: war brides in the German press, 1945-1949’,
Women’s History Review, Vol.12, No.4, (2003), pp577-603
John E. Farquharson, ‘Emotional but Influential: Victor Gollancz, Richard Stokes and the
British Zone in Germany: 1945-1949’, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol.22, (1987),
pp501-519
John E. Farquharson, ‘From Unity to Division: what prompted Britain to change its policy in
Germany in 1946’, European History Quarterly, Vol.26, (1996), pp81-123
John E. Farquharson, ‘Governed or Exploited? The British Acquisition of German
Technology, 1945-48’, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol.32, No.1, (1997), pp23-42
281
John E. Farquharson, ‘The British Occupation of Germany, 1945-1946: A Badly Managed
Disaster Area?’, German History, Vol.11, No.3, (1993), pp316-338
John E. Farquharson, The Western Allies and the Politics of Food, Agrarian Management in
Postwar Germany (Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd, 1985)
Henry Faulk, Group Captives: The Re-education of German prisoners of war in Britain 19451948 (London: Chatto & Windus, 1977)
Hildegard Feidel-Mertz, ‘Integration and Formation of Identity: Exile Schools in Great Britain’,
Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol.23, No.1, (2004), pp71-84
Josef Foschepoth & Rolf Steininger (eds.), Britische Deutschland- und Besatzungspolitik
(Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1985)
Josef Foschepoth, ‘British interest in the division of Germany after the Second World War’,
Journal of Contemporary History, Vol.21, (1986)
Matthew Frank, Expelling the Germans: British Opinion and Post-1945 Population Transfer
in Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)
Matthew Frank, ‘The New Morality – Victor Gollancz, “Save Europe Now” and the German
Refugee Crisis, 1945-46’, Twentieth Century British History, Vol.17, No.2, (2006), pp230-256
Mary Fulbrook, The Fontana History of Germany: 1918-1990, The Divided Nation (London:
Fontana Press, 1991)
Mary Fulbrook, Dissonant Lives: Generations and violence through the German dictatorships
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)
Jessica Gienow-Hecht, ‘Art is Democracy and Democracy is Art: Culture, Propaganda and
the Neue Zeitung in Germany, 1944-1947’, Diplomatic History, Vol.23, No.1, (Winter 1999)
pp21-43
John Gimbel, The American Occupation of Germany: Politics and the Military, 1945-1949
(Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1968)
Hermann Glaser, 1945 – Beginn einer Zukunft (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch
Verlag, 2005). First published as 1945. Ein Lesebuch, 1995
A Glees, Exile Politics During the Second World War: The German Social Democrats in
Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982)
Petra Goedde, ‘From Villains to Victims, Fraternization and the Feminization of Germany,,
1945-1947,’ Diplomatic History, Vol.23, No.1, (Winter 1999) pp3-20
Petra Goedde, GIs and Germans: Culture, gender and foreign relations 1945-49 (New
Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2003)
Atina Grossmann, Jews, Germans and Allies: Close encounters in occupied Germany
(Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2007)
Christian Haase, ‘In search of a European Settlement: Chatham House and British German
Relations, 1920-1955’, European History Quarterly, Vol.37, No.3, (2007), pp371-397
Christian Haase, ‘Democratic Citizenship in the Industrial Age: The British Sociologist T.H.
Marshall and the Democratisation of Germany’ in A. Bauerkämper & C. Eisenberg, (eds.),
Great Britain as a Model of Modern Society? German Views (Augsburg: Wissner, 2006),
pp89-110
282
Nigel Hamilton, Monty: The Field-Marshal 1944-1976 (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1986)
Jose Harris (ed.), Civil Society in British History: Ideas, Identities, Institutions (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2003)
Arthur Hearnden, The British in Germany (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1978)
Heinemann, Elizabeth, ‘The Hour of the Woman: Memories of Germany's “Crisis Years” and
West German National Identity’, The American Historical Review, Vol.101, No.2, (1996),
pp354-395
Ulrich Herbert, ‘Liberalisierung als Lernprozeß. Die Bundesrepublik in der deutschen
Geschichte – eine Skizze’ in Ulrich Herbert (ed.), Wandlungsprozesse in Westdeutschland:
Belastung, Integration, Liberalisierung 1945-1980 (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2002), pp749
Reg Herschy, Freedom at Midnight: Austria 1938-55 A story of the traumatic years of
occupation (Upton upon Severn: Reg Herschy, 1989)
Gerhard Hirschfeld (ed.), Exile in Great Britain: Refugees from Hitler’s Germany (Leamington
Spa: Berg Publishers, 1984)
Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes (London: Abacus, 1995). First published by Michael
Joseph, 1994
Christina von Hodenberg, Konsens und Krise: Eine Geschichte der westdeutschen
Medienöffentlichkeit 1945-1973 (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2006)
Michael F. Hopkins, Michael D. Kandiah and Gillian Staerck (eds.), Cold War Britain, 19451964 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003)
Gerald Hughes, ‘“Don’t let’s be beastly to the Germans”: Britain and the German Affair in
History’, Twentieth Century British History, Vol.17, No.2, (2006), pp257-283
Peter J. Humphries, Media and Media Policy in Germany: The Press and Broadcasting since
1945 (Oxford & Providence, USA: Berg, 1990)
Harold Hurwitz, Demokratie und Antikommunismus in Berlin nach 1945: Vol.4, Die Anfänge
des Widerstands (Cologne: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik, 1990)
Wolfgang Jacobmeyer, Vom Zwangsarbeiter zum Heimatlosen Ausländer (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985)
Walter James, A Short Account of Amy Buller and the Founding of St. Catherine’s,
Cumberland Lodge (Privately printed, 1979)
Konrad H. Jarausch, After Hitler: Recivilizing Germans, 1945-1995 (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2006)
Konrad H. Jarausch, ‘Towards a Social History of Experience: Postmodern Predicaments in
Theory and Interdisciplinarity’, Central European History, Vol.22, No.3/4, (1989), pp427-443
Jill Jones, ‘Eradicating Nazism from the British Zone of Germany: early policy and practice’,
German History, Vol.8, No.2, (1990), pp145-162
Ulrike Jordan (ed.), Conditions of Surrender, Britons and Germans witness the end of the
war (London & New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1997)
Ulrike Jureit & Michael Wildt (eds.), Generationen: Zur Relevanz eines wissenschaftlichen
Grundbegriffs (Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 2005)
283
Kurt Jürgensen, ‘British Occupation Policy after 1945 and the Problem of Re-educating
Germany’, History, Vol.68, (1983)
John Kelly, Ethical Socialism and the Trade Unions: Allan Flanders and the British Industrial
Relations Reform (New York & Abingdon: Routledge, 2010)
Anthony Kemp, The Secret Hunters (London: Michael O’Mara Books Limited, 1986)
Lothar Kettenacker (ed.), Das ‘Andere Deutschland’ im Zweiten Weltkrieg: Emigration und
Widerstand in internationaler Perspektive (Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag, 1977)
Lothar Kettenacker (ed.), Ein Volk von Opfern? Die neue Debatte um den Bombenkrieg
1940-45 (Berlin: Rowohlt, 2003)
Lothar Kettenacker, Krieg zur Friedenssicherung: Die Deutschlandplanung der britischen
Regierung während des zweiten Weltkrieges (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989)
Lothar Kettenacker, ‘The Anglo Soviet Alliance and the Problem of Germany 1941-45’,
Journal of Contemporary History, (1982)
Alan Kramer, The West German Economy, 1945-1955 (Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd, 1991)
Alan Kramer, ‘Law abiding Germans? Social Disintegration, Crime and the Reimposition of
Order in Post-war Western Germany, 1945-9’ in Richard Evans (ed.), The German
Underworld: Deviants and Outcasts in German History (New Haven & London: Yale
University Press, 1988), pp238-261
Rob Kroes, ‘World Wars and Watersheds: The Problem of Continuity in the Process of
Americanization’, Diplomatic History, Vol.23, No.1, (Winter 1999) pp71-77
David Kynaston, Austerity Britain: 1945-1951 (London: Bloomsbury, 2007)
Hagit Lavsky, ‘A Community of Survivors: Bergen-Belsen as a Jewish Centre after 1945’ in
Jo Reilly, David Cesarani, Tony Kushner, Colin Richmond (eds.), Belsen in History and
Memory (London & Portland Oregon: Frank Cass, 1997), pp162-177
Sean Longden, T-Force: the Race for Nazi War Secrets, 1945 (London: Constable, 2009)
Richard Löwenthal, Die Widerstandsgruppe Neu Beginnen (Berlin: Gedenkstätte Deutscher
Widerstand, 2001)
Walter Lüdde-Neurath, Regierung Dönitz: Die letzten Tage des Dritten Reichs (Gottingen:
1964)
Alf Lüdtke & Bernd Weisbrod (eds.), No Man’s Land of Violence: Extreme Wars in the 20
Century (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2006)
th
Giles MacDonagh, After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift
(London: John Murray (Publishers), 2007)
Patrick Major, ‘Britain and Germany: A Love-Hate Relationship’, German History, Vol.26,
No.4, (2008), pp457-468
Barbara Marshall, ‘German attitudes to British Military Government 1945-1947’, Journal of
Contemporary History, Vol.15, (1980), pp655-684
Barbara Marshall, The Origins of Post-War German Politics (London, New York, Sydney:
Croom Helm, 1988)
Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century (London: Allen Lane, The
Penguin Press, 1998)
284
Helen McCarthy and Pat Thane, ‘The Politics of Association in Industrial Society’, Twentieth
Century British History, Vol.22, No.2, (2011), pp217.229
Patricia Meehan, A Strange Enemy People (London: Peter Owen Publishers, 2001)
Sibylle Meyer and Eva Schulze, Wie wir das alles geschafft haben: Alleinstehende Frauen
berichten über ihr Leben nach 1945 (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1984)
Alan Milward, The Reconstruction of Western Europe 1945-51 (London: Methuen, 1984)
Mark Minion, ‘Left, Right or European? Labour and Europe in the 1940s: The case of the
Socialist Vanguard Group’, European Review of History: Revue européenne d’histoire, Vol.7,
No.2, July 2010, pp229-248
Robert G. Moeller, War Stories: The Search for a Usable Past in the Federal Republic of
Germany (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 2001)
Robert G. Moeller (ed.), West Germany under Construction: Politics, Society and Culture in
the Adenauer Era (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1997)
Kenneth O. Morgan, Labour People: Leaders and Lieutenants: Hardie to Kinnock (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1987)
Dirk Moses, German Intellectuals and the Nazi Past (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2007)
Norman Naimark, The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation,
1945-1949 (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, 1995)
Anthony J. Nichols, Always Good Neighbours – Never Good Friends? Anglo-German
Relations 1949-2001 (London: German Historical Institute London, 2005)
Vincent Orange, Coningham, A Biography of Air Marshal Sir Arthur Coningham KCB, KBE,
DSO, MC, DFC, AFC (London: Methuen, 1990)
Sarah Paterson, ‘“Operation Union”: British Families in Germany, 1946’, Imperial War
Museum Review, Vol.10, (1997), pp74-83
Panikos Panayi, Germans in Britain since 1500 (London and Rio Grande: The Hambledon
Press, 1996)
Margaret Pawley, The Watch on the Rhine (London, New York: I.B.Tauris, 2007)
Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson (eds.), The Oral History Reader (London and New York:
Routledge, 1998)
Uta G. Poiger, ‘Beyond “Modernization” and “Colonization”’, Diplomatic History, Vol.23, No.1,
(Winter 1999) pp45-57
Gareth Pritchard, ‘Schwarzenberg 1945: Antifascists and the ‘Third Way’ in German Politics’,
European History Quarterly, Vol. 35, No.4, (2005), pp499-522
Terence Prittie, Konrad Adenauer: 1876-1967 (London: Tom Stacey, 1972)
Nicholas Pronay, ‘Defeated Germany in German Newsreels 1944-5’ in K.R.M. Short and
Stephen Dolezel (eds.), Hitlers Fall, the Newsreel Witness (London, New York, Sydney:
Croom Helm, 1990)
285
Nicholas Pronay and Keith Wilson (eds.), The Political Re-education of Germany and her
Allies after World War II (London & Sydney: Croom Helm, 1985)
Nicholas Pronay and D.W. Spring (eds.), Propaganda Politics and Film 1918-1945 (London
and Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1982)
John Ramsden, Don’t Mention the War: The British and the Germans since 1890 (London:
Little Brown, 2006)
Ilse Rathjen-Couscherung, Eckernförde unter britische Besatzung:
Eine schleswigholsteinische Stadt 1945-55 (Eckernförde: Schriftenreihe der Heimatgemeinschaft
Eckernförde e.V. Nr. 14, 2008)
Ulrich Reusch, ‘Das Porträt: John Burns Hynd (1902-1971)’, Geschichte im Westen, Vol.1,
No.1, (1986)
Ulrich Reusch, Deutsches Berufsbeamtentum und Britische Besatzung 1943-1947 (Stuttgart:
Klett-Cotta, 1985)
Ulrich Reusch, ‘Die Londoner Institutionen der britischen Deutschlandpolitik 1943-48. Eine
behördengeschichtliche Untersuchung’, Historisches Jahrbuch 100, (1980), pp318-443
David Reynolds, In Command of History: Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World
War (London: Allen Lane, 2004)
David Reynolds, ‘The Origins of the Cold War, The European Dimension, 1944-1951’, The
Historical Journal, Vol.28, No.2, (1985), pp497-515
Werner Röder, Die deutschen sozialistischen Exilgruppen in Großbritannien 1940-1945,
(Bonn-Bad Godesberg: Verlag Neue Gesellschaft GmbH, 1973)
Gabriele Rosenthal, Erlebte und erzählte Lebensgeschichte: Gestalt und Struktur
biographischer Selbsbeschreibungen (Frankfurt & New York: Campus, 1995)
Wolfgang Rudzio, ‘Export englischer Demokratie? Zur Konzeption der britischen
Besatzungspolitik in Deutschland’, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Vol.17, No.2, (April
1969), pp219-236
Wolfgang Rudzio, Die Neuordnung des Kommunalwesens in der Britischen Zone (Stuttgart:
Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1968)
Claus Scharf, and Hans-Jürgen Schröder (eds.), Die Deutschlandpolitik Grossbritanniens
und die Britische Zone 1945-1949 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1979)
Axel Schildt, ‘The Long Shadows of the Second World War: The Impact of Experiences and
Memories of War on West German Society’, German Historical Institute London Bulletin, Vol.
XXIX, No.1, (May 2007), pp28-49
Axel Schildt, ‘Das “Hamburg project”. Eine kritische Phase der britischen Besatzungspolitik
in Hamburg 1945-47’ in Frank Otto and Thilo Schulz (eds.), Großbritannien und
Deutschland: gesellschaftliche, kulturelle und politische Beziehungen im 19. und 20.
Jahrhundert (Rheinfelden: Schäuble Verlag, 1999), pp131-147
Jonathan Schneer, Labour’s Conscience: The Labour Left 1945-51 (Boston: Unwin Hyman,
1988)
Gisela Schwarze, Eine Region im demokratischen Aufbau: Der Regierungsbezirk Münster
1945-6 (Düsseldorf: Schwann, 1984)
W.G. Sebald, On the Natural History of Destruction (London: Hamish Hamilton, 2003)
286
Tony Shaw, ‘The British Popular Press and the Early Cold War’, History, Vol.83, (1998),
pp66-85
Michael Sissons and Philip French (eds.), Age of Austerity (London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1963)
G. Rex Smith, ‘"Ingrams Peace", Ḥaḍramawt, 1937-40. Some Contemporary Documents’,
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series, Vol.12, No.1, (April 2002), pp1-30
Jörg Später, Vansittart: britische Debatten über Deutsche und Nazis 1902-1945 (Göttingen:
Wallstein Verlag, 2003)
Geoff Spencer, Beloved Alien: Walter Fliess 1901-1985 (Vancouver, British Columbia and
Donhead St. Andrew, Wiltshire: Privately printed, 1985)
Johannes-Dieter Steinert, Nach Holocaust und Zwangsarbeit: Britische humanitäre Hilfe in
Deutschland, Die Helfer, die Befreiten und die Deutschen (Osnabrück: secolo Verlag, 2007)
Johannes-Dieter Steinert and Inge Weber-Newth, European Immigrants in Britain 1933-1950
(Munich: K.G. Saur, 2003)
Johannes-Dieter Steinert and Inge Weber-Newth, Labour and Love. Deutsche in
Grossbritannien nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg (Osnabrück: secolo Verlag, 2000)
Rolf Steininger, Deutsche Geschichte 1945-61 (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch
Verlag, 1983)
Peter Stirk, The Politics of Military Occupation (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
2009)
Peter Süß (ed.), 1945 Befreiung und Zusammenbruch: Erinnerungen aus sechs Jahrzehnten
(München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 2005)
Arnold Sywottek, ‘Verständigung mit den “Engländern” nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Zu
einem noch ungeschriebenen Kapitel der “Vielvölkerstadt” Hamburg’ in Frank Otto and Thilo
Schulz (eds.), Großbritannien und Deutschland: gesellschaftliche, kulturelle und politische
Beziehungen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Rheinfelden: Schäuble Verlag, 1999), pp149-159
Frederick Taylor, Exorcising Hitler: The Occupation and Denazification of Germany (London:
Bloomsbury, 2011)
Jochen Thies, ‘“What is going on in Germany?” Britische Militärverwaltung in Deutschland
1945-6’ in Claus Scharf and Hans-Jürgen Schröder (eds.), Die Deutschlandpolitik
Grossbritanniens und die Britische Zone (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1979), pp29-50
Alistair Thomson, ‘Life Stories and Historical Analysis’ in Simon Gunn and Lucy Faire (eds.),
Research Methods for History (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012), pp101-117
Isabelle Tombs, ‘The victory of socialist “Vansittartism”: Labour and the German question,
1941-1945’, Twentieth Century British History, Vol.7, (1996), pp287-309
Wolfgang Trees, Charles Whiting & Thomas Omansen, Drei Jahre nach Null: Geschichte der
Britische Besatzungszone 1945-1948 (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1978)
Günter J. Trittel, Hunger und Politik: Die Ernährungskrise in der Bizone (1945-1949),
(Frankfurt & New York: Campus Verlag, 1990)
Ian D. Turner, ‘Great Britain and the Post-War German Currency Reform’, The Historical
Journal, Vol.30, No.3, (September 1987), pp685-708
287
Ian D. Turner (ed.), Reconstruction in Post-War Germany: British Occupation Policy and the
Western Zones 1945-1955 (Oxford: Berg Publishers Ltd, 1989)
Hester Vaizey, Surviving Hitler’s War: Family Life in Germany, 1939-48 (Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2010)
D.C. Watt, Britain looks to Germany: A Study of British Opinion and Policy towards Germany
since 1945 (London: Oswald Wolff, 1965)
Sidney and Beatrice Webb, The Parish and the County (London: Frank Cass, 1963). First
published in 1906
Inge Weber-Newth, ‘Bilateral relations: British Soldiers and German Women’ in Louise Ryan
& Wendy Webster (eds.), Gendering Migration: Masculinity, Femininity and Ethnicity in PostWar Britain (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), pp53-70
Wendy Webster, Englishness and Empire: 1939-1965 (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2005)
Bernd Weisbrod, ‘Eine ganz unamerikanische Tante: Die BBC und der nationale Medienstil
in der Nachkriegszeit’ in Belinda Davis, Thomas Lindenburger, Michael Wildt (eds.), Alltag,
Erfahrung, Eigensinn (Frankfurt, New York: Campus Verlag, 2008)
David Welch, ‘The political re-education of Germany after World War 2 – A need for a reappraisal’, German History, Vol.4, (1987), pp23-35
Michael Wildt, Der Traum vom Sattwerden; Hunger und Protest, Schwarzmarkt und
Selbsthilfe in Hamburg 1945-1948 (Hamburg: VSA Verlag, 1986)
Ralph Willett, The Americanisation of Germany 1945-1949 (London & New York: Routledge,
1989)
David Williamson, A Most Diplomatic General: The life of General Lord Robertson of
Oakridge (London, Washington: Brasseys, 1996)
David Williamson, The British in Germany 1918-1930: the Reluctant Occupiers (New York &
Oxford: Berg, 1991)
F. Roy Willis, The French in Germany: 1945-1949 (Stanford, California: Stanford University
Press, 1962)
Philip Windsor, ‘The Occupation of Germany’, History Today, (February 1963), pp77-84
Barbara Wood, Alias Papa: A Life of Fritz Schumacher (London: Jonathan Cape, 1984)
Unpublished theses
Hilary Ann Balshaw, The British Occupation in Germany, 1945-1949 with special reference
to Hamburg (PhD Diss: Oxford, 1972)
Ruth Easingwood, British Women in Occupied Germany : Lived experiences in the British
Zone 1945-1949 (PhD Diss: University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, 2009)
Margaret Kertesz, The Enemy – British images of the German People during the second
world war (PhD Diss: University of Sussex, 1993)
Christopher Probst, Protestant Responses to Martin Luther’s ‘Judenschriften’ in Germany,
1929-1945 (PhD Diss: London, 2008)
288
Jessica Reinisch, Public Health in Germany under Soviet and Allied Occupation, 1943-1947
(PhD Diss: London, 2004)
Frances Rosenfeld, The Anglo-German Encounter in Occupied Hamburg, 1945-50 (PhD
Diss: Columbia University, 2006)
Isabel Schropper, Austrian female migration to Britain, 1945 to 1960 (PhD Diss: London,
2010)
Barbara Schwepcke, The British High Commissioners in Germany : some aspects of their
role in Anglo-German relations, 1949-55 (PhD Diss: London, 1991)
Ian D. Turner, British Occupation Policy and its Effects on the Town of Wolfsburg and the
Volkswagenwerk, 1945-1949 (PhD Diss: Manchester UMIST, 1984)
289